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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Bakaraju Claim 1, USC 102
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the art of Bakaraju and claim 1, Examiner is not persuaded. As shown in Figure 3, The lens (10) of Bakaraju is applied to the eye to achieve the claimed result of:
a) increasing the distance between red (r) and blue (b) wavelengths. Specifically Bakaraju Fig. 3 shows blue (short) focusing before red (long). Such distance is an increase from an arbitrary reference distance, such as red and blue both focusing to the retina;
b) and the blue (b) wavelength is positioned closer to the cornea than the red (r) relative to an unadjusted location (e.g. relative to all wavelengths arriving at the retina).
Bakaraju Claim 7, USC 102
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 is directed only to the human, the human eye, and the various adjusted properties of such eye. No device is recited. Thus the invention of claim 1 encapsulates a human organism performing the method. In other words, the human is the device performing the method. This is in contrast to a device which performs the method.
Claims 4-6 fail to resolve the issues of claim 1. The claims fail to include a device performing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
As to claim 1, the claim recites a single adjusting step to achieve the results of a) and b) however no combination of elements is recited.
Claims 4-6 do not resolve the issues of claim 1. The claims do not introduce any elements/device.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-20, 22, 24-25 are 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 1, the claim recites “increase the distance between the long-visible wavelength focal plane and the short-visible wavelength focal plane” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, increase relative to what/when? Examiner will presume such increase is relative to the unadjusted distance - i.e. a presumed distance in the preamble.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the distance” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand as “[[the]] a distance”.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “position the short-visible wavelength focal plane closer to the cornea than the short-visible focal plane than would be located if not adjusted” which is an unclear function (MPEP 2173.05(g)) and appears to be describing the typical movement of, for example blue light, as the eye accommodates. Furthermore, the distance from the cornea to the blue/short focal plane is also a function of the blue object distance. The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill would fail to understand how to infringe such function. Is the eye simply moving around in space to adjust the object-eye distance? Is the eye accommodating? Other?
Claims 4-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “the short-visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly blue wavelengths” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What is intended by “predominantly” appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Neither Applicant’s claims nor specification provide an objective metric to what is, or is not, included in “predominantly”. Is this all the blue wavelengths arrive at the focal plane and some non-blue also arrive at the focal plane? Is predominant a reference to a power/intensity ratio?
Additionally, Applicant’s language is inconsistent with what those of ordinary skill in the art understand regarding focal planes and wavelengths. The claim language suggests the focal plane is the wavelengths, however those of ordinary skill in the art understand focal planes to be locations not the wavelengths themselves. In other words, the focal plane is for the blue wavelength(s) not “is” wavelengths. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as any one blue wavelength arrives at the focal plane, such limitation is met.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the long-visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly red wavelengths” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What is intended by “predominantly” appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Neither Applicant’s claims nor specification provide an objective metric to what is, or is not, included in “predominantly”. Is this all the red wavelengths arrive at the focal plane and some non-red also arrive at the focal plane? Is predominant a reference to a power/intensity ratio?
Additionally, Applicant’s language is inconsistent with what those of ordinary skill in the art understand regarding focal planes and wavelengths. The language suggests the focal plane is the wavelengths, however those of ordinary skill in the art understand focal planes to be locations not the wavelengths themselves. In other words, the focal plane is for the red wavelength(s) not “is” wavelengths. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as any one red wavelength arrives at the focal plane, such limitation is met.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “the long-visible wavelength focal plane is in focus on the retina” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The location of the focus of the wavelength is dependent upon the object distance. Thus, for a red object at a distance of infinity (i.e. the wavefronts are generally planar upon reaching the eye) which focuses on the retina, the identical focusing would not necessarily be true for a red object much closer to the eye. In other words, the invention can simultaneously infringe and not infringe itself simply by changing the red object distance. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches providing corrected vision, such features will be considered met.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “a first focal zone of more positive dioptric power” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). More positive than what? For purposes of compact prosecution so long as the prior art teaches any power of a first zone, such power is necessarily “more positive” than any arbitrary less positive power.
Claims 11, 12, 13 resolve the “more positive” issue of claim 7.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the long end of the visible spectrum” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the first focal zone transmits less visible light at the long end of the visible spectrum than does the second focal zone” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Which visible wavelengths are, or are not, included in the “long end”? If the visible spectrum is considered to be ~380nm to 750nm, is the “long end” anything above the central wavelength 565nm? Is the long end only red? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches the first focal zone transmitting less light at any visible wavelength than the second focal zone transmitting the same wavelength, such limitations are considered met.
Claims 10-20, 22, 24-25 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “the dioptric power of the second focal zone is sufficient to reduce the development of myopia, eliminate the development of myopia, and/or improve the emmetropization of the eye” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)) as well as a result/function of a problem to be solved without the corresponding boundaries of the structure (e.g. power) (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Regarding the relative/subjective issues, what is “sufficient”? “Reduce” is relative to what? When? What constitutes an “improve”[ment]? Such features do not have an objective metric to what constitutes a sufficient power, a reduction, or an improvement. Such features appear subjective to the patient/wearer of the device whether they feel their myopia has been reduced or improved.
Regarding the function and problem to be solved, as per Applicant’s specification1, the power of the second focal zone includes 0D. Those of ordinary skill in the art would not consider 0D (i.e. a plano lens; zero-power) to be sufficient in reducing myopia, eliminating myopia, or improving emmetropization of the eye.
The metes and bounds are unclear since what powers are included or excluded by the claim appear subjective/relative and inconsistent with what those of ordinary skill in the art understand.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “about +0.5 to +3.0 diopters greater than…” which is a range (about) of a range (0.5 to 3.0) (MPEP 2173.05(c)) and a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). While Applicant’s specification2 makes reference to “about” as generally meaning an acceptable degree, Examiner does not consider such statement to be a special definition. Additionally, such statement is itself subjective.
What range of values for the first dioptric power to be greater than the second dioptric power is unclear. If the second power is 0.0D, and the first power is +0.45D, is this about +0.5? Is +0.001D also about +0.5? Thus the powers can have a difference of only 0.001D? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim so long as the first power is greater than the second power, such limitations are met.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “about +2.0 diopters greater than…” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b). While Applicant’s specification2 makes reference to “about” as generally meaning an acceptable degree, Examiner does not consider such statement to be a special definition. Additionally, such statement is itself subjective.
What range of values for the first dioptric power to be greater than the second dioptric power is unclear. Is +0.001D also about +2.0D? Thus the powers can have a difference of only +0.001D? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim so long as the first power is greater than the second power, such limitations are met.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “the first focal zone is tinted to transmit less visible light above a spectral cutoff point between 420nm and 560nm” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Transmit less visible light relative to what, other wavelengths - i.e. the transmission above 560nm of the first focal zone is less than transmission at 420nm? Less than some other reference focal zone?
Furthermore, what Applicant intends as a “cutoff” as well as “transmission” is unclear. Is this average transmission? Transmission at a single wavelength? What constitutes the cutoff? The full width at half maximum (FWHM)?
For purposes of compact prosecution so long as the prior art teaches transmission at any visible wavelength above 420nm to be less than the transmission at any wavelength from 420nm to 560nm, such limitation is met.
As to claim 15, the claim recites “the second focal zone is tinted to transmit relatively more of the visible light above a spectral cutoff point between 420nm and 560nm” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Transmit relatively more visible light relative to what, other wavelengths - i.e. the transmission above 560nm of the second focal zone is more than transmission at 420nm? More than some other reference focal zone?
Furthermore, what Applicant intends as a “cutoff” as well as “transmission” is unclear. Is this average transmission? Transmission at a single wavelength? What constitutes the cutoff? The full width at half maximum (FWHM)?
For purposes of compact prosecution so long as the prior art teaches transmission at any visible wavelength above 420nm to be greater than the transmission at any wavelength from 420nm to 560nm, such limitation is met.
As to claim 17, the claim recites “the zone focal zone is tinted clear” which appears to be a contradiction of terms. Clear tint would be untinted. Or does Applicant intend for such language to include something else?
As to claim 20, the claim recites “the additional focal zone being about equal to the first focal zone in tint and dioptric power” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). While Applicant’s specification2 makes reference to “about” as generally meaning an acceptable degree, Examiner does not consider such statement to be a special definition. Additionally, such statement is itself subjective. What is “about equal”? Within 10%? Within 5%? Other? Also, what is “an about equal tint”? Is blue an about equal tint to green? Is yellow about equal to orange? About equal to red? Are all tints red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet “about equal” since they are all part of the rainbow? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches an additional zone, such zone can be arbitrarily said to be about equal in tint and power.
As to claim 22, the claim recites “each of the additional focal zones being about equal in tint and dioptric power to…” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). While Applicant’s specification2 makes reference to “about” as generally meaning an acceptable degree, Examiner does not consider such statement to be a special definition. Additionally, such statement is itself subjective. What is “about equal”? Within 10%? Within 5%? Other? Also, what is “an about equal tint”? Is blue an about equal tint to green? Is yellow about equal to orange? About equal to red? Are all tints red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet “about equal” since they are all part of the rainbow? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches an additional zone, such zone can be arbitrarily said to be about equal in tint and power.
As to claim 24, the claim recites similar language to claims 20 and 22 above and are similarly rejected for “about equal in tint and dioptric power”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Freeman (US 4,641,934).
Examiner’s note: Freeman’s Figures 1, 2 depict the associated longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) from the object space perspective for illustration purposes - i.e. the colors (R, G, B) on the object side are separated. This is the equivalent reverse of Applicant’s image space perspective - i.e. the colors are separated at the image side.
As to claim 1, Freeman teaches a method of improving emmetropization in an eye of a subject (Freeman Figs. 1, 2), the eye having a short-visible wavelength plane and a long-visible wavelength plane relatively farther from the cornea than the short-visible wavelength plane (Freeman Fig. 1; col. 2:28-30), the method comprising adjusting the vision in the eye to:
a) increase the distance between the long-visible wavelength focal plane and the short-visible wavelength focal plane (Freeman Fig. 2; col. 1:24-30)
b) position the short-visible wavelength plane closer to the cornea than the short-visible wavelength focal plane would be located if not adjusted (Freeman Fig. 2; col. 3:1-5; col. 3:35-40).
As to claim 4, Freeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the short visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly blue wavelengths (Freeman Fig. 2 - B).
As to claim 5, Freeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the long visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly red wavelengths (Freeman Fig. 2 - R).
As to claim 6, Freeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Freeman further teaches the long visible wavelength is in focus on the retina (Freeman Fig. 2 - R, G; col. 2:63-68).
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-20, 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wesley (US 3,339,997).
As to claim 1, a method of improving emmetropization in an eye of a subject (Wesley Figs. 1-9), the eye having a short-visible wavelength plane and a long-visible wavelength plane relatively farther from the cornea than the short-visible wavelength plane (Wesley Fig. 1 - 10, 18, 20; implicit LCA of human eye; col. 3:15-18), the method comprising adjusting the vision in the eye to:
a) increase the distance between the long-visible wavelength focal plane and the short-visible wavelength focal plane (Wesley Figs. 4-6; col. 3:60-75; col. 4:1-25)
b) position the short-visible wavelength plane closer to the cornea than the short-visible wavelength focal plane would be located if not adjusted (Wesley Fig. 6 - R’; col. 3:60-75; col. 4:1-25).
As to claim 4, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wesley further teaches the short-visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly blue wavelengths (Wesley col. 3:10-16; col. 3:40-45; col. 4:1-25).
As to claim 5, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wesley further teaches the long-visible wavelength focal plane is predominantly red wavelengths (Wesley col. 4:70-75).
As to claim 6, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wesley further teaches the long-visible wavelength focal plane is in focus on the retina (Wesley Fig. 5 - R).
As to claim 7, Wesley teaches a method for improving emmetropization in an eye of a subject (Wesley Figs. 1-9), the eye having a short-wavelength focal plane and a long-wavelength focal plane relatively farther from the cornea than the short-wavelength focal plane (Wesley Fig. 1 - 10, 18, 20; implicit LCA of human eye; col. 3:15-18), the method comprising providing the subject with a vision correction device (Wesley Fig. 2 - L’, 30, 32; col. 2:51-56), the vision correction device comprising:
a) a first focal zone of a more positive dioptric power (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32; Fig. 5 - 30; col. 3:55-60; col. 4:1-23 - teaching the near zone (32) having more positive power for blue (e.g. ~4.860nm); note: Wesley appears to have swapped the 32, 30 labels in Figures 5, 6);
b) a second focal zone of a more negative dioptric power than the first focal zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - 30; col. 3:10-20; col. 3:30-35; col. 4:1-23 - teaching the far zone (30) having less power (e.g. 0.5D less at 550nm than at blue 486nm);
wherein the first focal zone transmits less visible light at the long end of the visible spectrum than does the second focal zone (Wesley col. 3:12-15; col. 3:40-50; col. 4:1-23 - first zone (32) being tinted blue thus passing less long wavelengths (e.g. green, red) than the second zone (30) which is clear/untinted).
As to claim 10, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the subject has myopia and the dioptric power of the second focal zone is sufficient to reduce the development of myopia, eliminate the development of myopia, and/or improve the emmetropization of the eye (Wesley col. 1:1-25).
As to claim 11, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first optical zone’s dioptric power is at least +0.25D greater than the second focal zone’s dioptric power (Wesley col. 4:10-15; col. 4:60-75).
As to claim 12, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first optical zone’s dioptric power is about +0.5 to +3.0 D greater than the second focal zone’s dioptric power (Wesley col. 4:10-15; col. 4:60-75).
As to claim 13, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first optical zone’s dioptric power is about +2.0 D greater than the second focal zone’s dioptric power (Wesley col. 4:10-15; col. 4:60-75).
As to claim 14, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first focal zone is tinted to transmit less visible light above a spectral cutoff point between 420nm and 560nm (Wesley col. 3:12-15; col. 3:40-50; col. 4:1-23).
As to claim 15, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the second focal zone is tinted to transmit relatively more of the visible light above a spectral cutoff point between 420nm and 560nm (Wesley col. 4:60-75).
As to claim 16, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first focal zone is tinted blue (Wesley col. 3:12-15; col. 3:40-50; col. 4:1-23).
As to claim 17, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the second focal zone is tinted clear (Wesley col. 4:10-23; col. 4:60-65).
As to claim 18, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the second focal zone is tinted yellow (Wesley col. 4:60-65).
As to claim 19, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the first focal zone is either circular or annular (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32) and the second focal zone is either circular or annular (Wesley Fig. 2 - 30) and is concentric with the first focal zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32, 30).
As to claim 20, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the vision correction device comprises at least one additional focal zone being about equal to the first focal zone in tint and dioptric power (Wesley Fig. 2 - the claim provides no structural or functional distinction between “zones” thus zone (32) having upper and lower halves has an additional zone of equal tint and dioptric power).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 22, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the vision correction device comprises multiple additional focal zones, each of the additional focal zones being about equal in tint and dioptric power to either the first focal zone or the second focal zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - the claim provides no structural or functional distinction between “zones” thus zone (32) can be divided into N zones with equal tint/power; similarly zone (30) can also be divided in to N zones with equal tint/power).
As to claim 24, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches:
a) the first optical zone is either circular or concentric (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32);
b) the second optical zone is either circular or annular and is concentric with the first optical zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - 30);
c) the device comprises a first group of additional focal zones being about equal in tint and dioptric power to the first focal zone, wherein each of the first group of additional focal zones is circular or annular and is concentric with the first focal zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32; the claim provides no structural or functional distinction between “zones” thus zone (32) can be divided into N concentric zones of equal tint/power).
d) the device comprises a second group of additional focal zones being about equal in tint and dioptric power to the second focal zone, wherein each of the second group of additional focal zones is circular or annular and is concentric with the first focal zone (Wesley Fig. 2 - 32; the claim provides no structural or functional distinction between “zones” thus zone (30) can be divided into N concentric zones of equal tint/power all of which being concentric with zone (32)).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25, Wesley teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Wesley further teaches the device is one of a multifocal contact lens or multifocal spectacles (Wesley Fig. 1 - L’; Fig. 9 - L4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL Documents: Cited for showing longitudinal chromatic aberrations properties for the human eye:
Maria Vinas, et al. (Longitudinal chromatic aberration of the human eye in the visible and near infrared from wavefront sensing, double-pass and psychophysics)3
Nikolai Suchkov et al. (Impact of longitudinal chromatic aberration on through-focus visual acuity)4
Patent Documents: Cited for showing similar structures as claimed and disclosed - e.g. lenses affecting the LCA of the human eye, tinting, powers:
Freeman (US 4,655,565); Piers et al. (US 2011/0109874; US 8,623,083); Bakaraju (US 2020/0073147; US 11,226,497; WO 2018/076057).
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 August 13, 2026
1 Orig. filed Spec. page 12:lines 15-20; Fig. 6A.
2 Orig. filed Spec. page 9:lines 17-24
3 Maria Vinas, Carlos Dorronsoro, Daniel Cortes, Daniel Pascual, and Susana Marcos, "Longitudinal chromatic aberration of the human eye in the visible and near infrared from wavefront sensing, double-pass and psychophysics," Biomed. Opt. Express 6, 948-962 (2015)
4 Nikolai Suchkov, Enrique J. Fernández, and Pablo Artal, "Impact of longitudinal chromatic aberration on through-focus visual acuity," Opt. Express 27, 35935-35947 (2019)
Prosecution Insights