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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 12/16/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Claim 1 is amended by the applicant. Claims 1-5 and 15 are pending, with claims 6, 8-10, and 12-13 withdrawn. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. US PGPub 2016/0026001 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 03/23/2022, hereinafter, “Nishimura”) in view of Smith, George PhD; Bedggood, Phillip, BOptom; Ashman, Ross, PhD; Daaboul, Mary, BSc (Hons); Metha, Andrew, PhD. “Exploring Ocular Aberrations with a Schematic Human Eye Model”, Optometry and Vision Science 85(5):p 330-340, May 2008. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31816c4449 (hereinafter, “Smith”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Nishimura discloses a method for designing an eyeglass lens (refer to at least title and abstract disclosing a spectacle lens design system and design method, equivalent to a method for designing an eyeglass lens) in which at least any one surface of a refractive surface on a front surface side and a refractive surface on a rear surface side is formed of an aspherical surface (refer to at least par. [0070], lens data includes the type of spectacle lens, such as an aspherical lens, therefore at least one of the surfaces of the spectacle lens is an aspherical surface), the method comprising:
an eye model construction step of determining a value of a parameter of each of a plurality of optical elements (Fig. 19, spectacle lens design computer 202 selects eyeball model E according to prescription, such as spherical power and cylindrical power, of scheduled wearer S, par. [0185], and the spectacle lens design system disclosed by Nishimura comprises the calculation of wearing parameters based on corneal apex position, pars. [0009-10], [0021-23], see Fig. 11 depicting a flowchart for the wearing parameter collecting process, where processor 152 calculates wearing parameters at step S513-2, par. [0153], therefore disclosing parameters for the eye of scheduled wearer S and the spectacle lens L, equivalent to a plurality of optical elements), and constructing an eye model (Fig.7 depicts an eyeball model, and Fig. 20 depicts a virtual model of spectacle and eyeball, and spectacle lens design computer 202 selects suitable eyeball model E in accordance with prescription of scheduled wearer S, pars. [0184-185]);
an aberration acquisition step of making a light ray incident at an angle with respect to a visual axis of the eye model (Nishimura teaches the use of ray tracing in the design process, see Fig. 19 step S207, and spectacle lens design computer 202 executes optimization calculation by ray tracing with respect to spectacle lens model L, pars. [0198-199], see Fig. 20 depicting a model of eye and spectacle lens constructed by spectacle lens design computer 202, and light rays proceed from an object to the lens and the eyeball, par. [0226], indicating the specification of an angle with respect to the visual axis of the eyeball model E, satisfying the limitation) to obtain aberrations in both of a paracentral portion and a peripheral portion of a retina of the eye model by an optical simulation (Nishimura teaches suitable aberration distribution in the lens produced from the design process disclosed therein, where astigmatism is reduced, par. [0226], see at least Fig. 29B, noting that astigmatism is one of the general forms of optical aberration, and the aberration distribution shown in at least Fig. 29B of Nishimura shows both paracentral, i.e., near center, and peripheral portions of astigmatism on the reference sphere of the model eyeball E as best understood by the Examiner, refer to par. [0226], and in pars. [0233-249] as well as Fig. 34, Nishimura teaches the first step in the design process is the construction of a virtual model, step S301, with step S304 being the setting of an initial value for the aspherical surface coefficient, par. [0237], therefore Nishimura discloses obtaining an off-axis aberration before correction in both of a paracentral portion and a peripheral portion of a retina of the eye model by an optical simulation);
an aspherical coefficient value calculation step of disposing an eyeglass lens on a front side of the eye model (Fig. 20, spectacle lens model L is on the front side of eyeball model E, par. [0184]), performing a plurality of the optical simulations by changing an aspherical coefficient value that is an aspherical component added to the refractive surface on the front surface side or the refractive surface on a rear surface side to obtain a corrected off-axis aberration in both of the paracentral portion and peripheral portion of the eye model (Fig. 34 depicts a flowchart for the design process by spectacle lens design computer 202, including setting an initial aspherical surface coefficient at step S304, evaluating through steps S305, S306, S307, to step S308 where the aspherical coefficient is changed if necessary, pars. [0233-246], thereby teaching the performance of a plurality of optical simulations wherein the aspherical coefficient value is changed in order to satisfy the convergence condition, par. [0245]), and obtaining an aspherical coefficient value that makes the corrected off-axis aberration smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction in both of the paracentral portion and the peripheral portion of the retina of the eye model (Nishimura teaches suitable aberration distribution in the lens produced from the design process disclosed, where astigmatism is reduced, par. [0226], see at least Fig. 29B, and the aberration distribution shown in at least Fig. 29B of Nishimura shows peripheral astigmatism on the reference sphere of the model eyeball E as best understood by the Examiner, refer to par. [0226]); and
an aspherical shape determination step of determining an aspherical shape of the eyeglass lens based on the aspherical coefficient value (Fig. 19, spectacle lens design computer 202 calculates an aspherical surface correction amount according to the wearing condition and adds the calculated aspherical surface correction amount to the tentative lens surface shape after step S206, par. [0206]) that makes the corrected off-axis aberration smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction by a predetermined value in both of the paracentral portion and the peripheral portion of the retina of the eye model (Nishimura teaches the satisfaction of a predetermined convergence condition, par. [0245], wherein the convergence condition for optimizing the use region of spectacle lens model L may be arbitrarily set, par. [0199], including a condition in which the corrected off-axis aberration is smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction).
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a light ray incident at an angle between 20 degrees to 40 degrees, nor does Nishimura disclose the limitation “obtain a spot diagram” nor the limitation “obtain an off-axis aberration before correction that is a Root Mean Square (RMS) radius of the spot diagram”, nor the limitation “obtain a corrected off-axis aberration that is the Root Mean Square (RMS) radius of the spot diagram”, and Nishimura does not disclose the corrected off-axis aberration is smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction by 1.5 mm or more.
In the field of optometry, Smith teaches a schematic eye to investigate where ocular aberrations arise in the eye (refer to at least abstract thereof) and further teaches optical modeling to examine aberrations away from the aberration-free retinal point, where a spot diagram demonstrates the effects of aberrations, and the size of the spot diagram can be expressed as the root mean square of the radius of the spots (page 332, second column, second full paragraph in section Variation of Aberrations with Field Position). Smith, in Fig. 2, shows the RMS of the spot diagram radiuses as a function of off-axis angle in uncorrected and corrected sagittal and tangential sections, and the corrected tangential sections have a RMS spot diagram radius that is at least 4 mm smaller than the uncorrected tangential sections, satisfying the instant limitation that the corrected off-axis aberration is smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction by 1.5 mm or more.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Smith to the disclosure of Nishimura and expressed aberrations as spot diagrams, and expressed the off-axis aberrations before correction as the root mean square of the spot diagram, as Smith teaches the use of spot diagrams for assessing aberrations away from a retina point, and further teaches that expressing the spot diagram as a root mean square of the radius of the spots is convenient (Smith, page 332, second column, second full paragraph in section Variation of Aberrations with Field Position) and Smith further teaches the corrected off-axis aberration is smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction by 4 mm (Smith, Fig. 2).
The prior art combination does not disclose the light ray is incident at an angle between 20 degrees to 40 degrees with respect to a visual axis of the eye model (Nishimura is silent as to angles of incidence of light rays, and Smith in Fig. 2 discloses spot diagram radiuses for off-axis points from zero to 20 degrees, refer to page 332 second column second paragraph in Variation of Aberrations with Field Position). The instant application does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses incidence angles from zero to 20 degrees (Smith, Fig. 2). The entire range would perform the same function of modeling the appearance and distribution of aberrations in the model eye. Because there is no allegation of criticality to the claimed range of 20 degrees to 40 degrees, and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity (i.e., examining off-axis aberrations over a 20 degree range). See MPEP section 2131.03.II Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have extended the range of incidence angles from 20 degrees to 40 degrees, because Smith teaches that in general aberrations increase as object points move further away from the optical axis and that optical modeling can examine the reappearance of aberrations away from the aberration-free retinal point (Smith, page 332, column 2).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Nishimura in view of Smith (hereinafter, “modified Nishimura”) discloses the method for designing an eyeglass lens according to claim 1, and Nishimura further discloses wherein, in the eye model construction step, the parameters of the plurality of optical elements are determined using a value of a schematic eye modeled from biometric data (Nishimura teaches the use of a model eye of Gullstrand, par. [0105], and further teaches values suitable for an eyeball model of scheduled wearer S based on various factors, refer to at least Fig. 6, step S12f, pars. [0109-112]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Nishimura discloses the method for designing an eyeglass lens according to claim 1, and Nishimura further discloses wherein, in the eye model construction step, the parameters of the plurality of optical elements are determined using a value obtained by measuring an eye of a wearer (Nishimura processor 152a calculates coordinates of the eyeball rotation center of scheduled wearer S, par. [0090], [0150]).
Claims 2, 3, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura US PGPub 2017/0273558 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/28/2025, hereinafter, “Tamura”).
Regarding dependent claim 2, modified Nishimura discloses the method for designing an eyeglass lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein, in the eye model construction step, a crystalline lens or an intraocular lens is selected as one of the optical elements to determine the value of the parameter.
In a related field of invention, Tamura discloses an ophthalmic imaging apparatus with an eye model generation unit 231 and a simulation execution unit 232 with an intraocular lens database storage unit 2121, par. [0118], intraocular lens calculation unit 2321, and intraocular lens model specification unit 2322 (refer to at least par. [0088] and pars. [0107-108]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Tamura to the disclosure of Nishimura and added a database of lens models to the design process disclosed by Nishimura to have models of intraocular lens available for design and optimization for scheduled wearer S (Tamura, par. [0118]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Nishimura in view of Smith and Tamura (hereinafter, “revised Nishimura”) discloses the method for designing an eyeglass lens according to claim 2, and Tamura further discloses wherein, in the eye model construction step, a contact lens is further selected as one of the optical elements to determine the value of the parameter (Tamura teaches the simulation of contact lenses, par. [0210]).
Regarding new dependent claim 15, revised Nishimura discloses the method for designing an eyeglass lens according to claim 2, and Tamura further discloses wherein, in the eye model construction step, in a case that the crystalline lens is selected as one of the optical elements, the parameter includes a refractive index distribution of a front surface of the crystalline lens (parameters of the subject’s eye E include parameters for the anterior surface of the crystalline lens and the refractive index, Tamura, pars. [0089-93], satisfying the instant limitation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued Smith merely discloses that a RMS radius of a spot diagram is used to represent an aberration, but Smith does not disclose or teach how much or by what degree the RMS should decrease, and thus argues it would be difficult to obtain the specific technical idea of "obtaining an off-axis aberration before correction by making a light ray incident at an angle between 20 degrees to 40 degrees" and "obtaining an aspherical coefficient value that makes the corrected off-axis aberration smaller than the off-axis aberration before correction by 1.5 mm or more". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, Smith teaches the reduction of RMS spot diagram radius after correction by 4 mm, satisfying the condition that the correction be 1.5 mm or more. Further, the extension of the incidence angle from 20 degrees out to 40 degrees does not provide any unexpected benefits or results, and a wider angle of incidence will obviously allow for modeling of aberrations further away from the visual axis. Therefore, the prior art teaches and renders obvious the amended limitations of claim 1.
No other arguments were presented after page 7 of Remarks. As such, the prior art discloses the invention as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872