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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.” However, the specification is silent to any “complementary means” inserted in either scroll wheel. Rather, the specification describes that the eyewear has two scroll wheels for adjusting the position of the lens holders in P. 15, L. 4-10. Meanwhile, the “complementary means” are described as being inserted into “slides” in, e.g. P. 9, L. 27 – P. 10, L. 8. The “slides” are not “scroll wheels” but an additional element of the eyewear, as shown in Figs. 1-6. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would not find that Applicant was in possession of eyewear having a complementary mean inserted into a scroll wheel, and the claims are not supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; claims 15-29 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 14 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claim 21 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 20 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 and 13-21 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.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.” However, it is unclear what is intended to be a “complementary mean.” Specifically, it is unclear what a “mean” is and how such a “mean” can be “complementary” with a scroll wheel. As such, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the claimed first and second “complementary means.”
Moreover, claim limitation “complementary mean” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if the “mean” is intended to be a “means for” some function, and the “mean” is not modified by any structural language. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For the purposes of examination, any lenses including a structure that is inserted into the scroll wheels will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; claims 15-29 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 14 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claim 21 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 20 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 13 further recites “another subset comprises at least a third lens holder.” However, claim 13 depends upon claim 1 which recites “a first subset” and “a second subset.” It is unclear if the “another subset” of claim 13 is intended to be an additional subset of if the “another” subset can refer to the “second subset” of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the first subset and second subset of claim 13 will be interpreted as the subsets of 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Korean Pub. No. KR 10-2009-0100508) in view of Spivey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,857,990; hereinafter – “Spivey”) and Saffra (U.S. Patent No. 7,959,287). All citations to Jang are directed toward the English machine translation of the Korean document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches an eyewear comprising:
- a frame headwear (10) configured to be worn by a user, the frame headwear comprising a front part (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; P. 4, Paragraphs 3-4), and
- a set of at least two lens holders (20), each of said lens holders being configured to be removably fastened to the frame headwear in a predetermined mounted position and each lens holder comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (30) attached to said lens holder, each lens of the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses being configured to be movable relative to the lens holder while being attached to said lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Therefore" the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side moved and the focus of the progressive multifocal lens (30) is adjusted according to interpupillary distance (the normal" and PD box) of the consumer”),
wherein the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5), and wherein the set of at least one lens holder comprises:
a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of vision lenses with optical power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”), and
a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having optical power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that each first lens holder has an associated pair of single vision lenses with a first optical power, and each second lens holder has an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having the first optical power.
However, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21), the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses (1L, 1R) with a first optical power (See e.g. Fig. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The base prescription lenses 1L and 1R correct the power and astigmatism of the patient without any progressive correction”; C. 4, L. 7-21), and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R) with at least one zone having the first power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The adjustable progressive addition lenses 2L, 3L, 2R and 3R provide only the progressive add power but in a manner that is highly adjustable so that the patient's preferences regarding the progressive add power can be ascertained”; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the first optical power to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the sets of lens holders having the first optical power of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the lens holder comprises at least two landmarks (26, 32), each of which locates a reference point of the ophthalmic lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Moreover" the invention is configured to conveniently confirm the adjusted position after doing the control the center position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) according to the interpupillary distance point of the consumer the pilot wire (32) is indicated on the top center part of the progressive multifocal lens (30) the scale (32) is indicated on the upper end of the secondary rim (20). If this controls the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of one secondary rim (20) among multiple secondary rims (20) according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer " the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of dissimilar secondary rim (20) is easily controlled through the scale (32) and pilot wire (32)”).
Regarding claim 4, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a landmark (26, 32) to indicate a position of a near vision zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that each lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses is movable relative to the associated lens holder along an axis corresponding to a nasal-temporal axis of the user when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Therefore" the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side moved and the focus of the progressive multifocal lens (30) is adjusted according to interpupillary distance (the normal" and PD box) of the consumer”).
Regarding claim 6, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the lens holder comprises a graduated scale (26, 32) which indicates a distance between the reference points of the two ophthalmic lenses of the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Moreover" the invention is configured to conveniently confirm the adjusted position after doing the control the center position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) according to the interpupillary distance point of the consumer the pilot wire (32) is indicated on the top center part of the progressive multifocal lens (30) the scale (32) is indicated on the upper end of the secondary rim (20). If this controls the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of one secondary rim (20) among multiple secondary rims (20) according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer " the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of dissimilar secondary rim (20) is easily controlled through the scale (32) and pilot wire (32)”).
Regarding claim 7, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the each lens holder is magnetically fastened to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the lens holder comprises two circles jointed by a bridge, the lenses being positioned within the circles (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; P. 4, Paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user.
However, Saffra further teaches that a position of a nosepad (20) of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 3, L. 13-50).
Saffra teaches this adjustable nosepad for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the adjustable nosepad of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 10, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens, the right lenses of the set having identical right peripheral contour and optical centers of the right lenses being positioned in same relative position to the right contour and the left lenses of the set having identical left peripheral contour and optical centers of the left lenses being positioned in same relative position to the left contour (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker”).
Additionally, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens, the right lenses of the set having same right contour and optical centers of the right lenses being positioned in same place relative to the right contour and the left lenses of the set having same left contour and optical centers of the left lenses being positioned in same place relative to the left contour (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the same contours to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, even if the eyewear of Jang did not read on the claimed eyewear, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the sets of lens holders having the same contours of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Regarding claim 11, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, each pair of ophthalmic lenses being different from one lens holder to another of the set, preferentially having different optical powers and/or different optical designs from one lens holder to another (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker”).
Regarding claim 13, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 10, as above.
Jang further teaches that the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset comprising at least a first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a first optical power, and a second lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a second optical power distinct from the first optical power, and - a second subset comprising at least a third lens holder, the third lens holder having an associated pair of third lenses, the third lenses comprising at least a near vision zone having an optical power equal to the first optical power and a far vision zone having an optical power equal to the second optical power, the third lenses being progressive additional lenses or bifocal lenses or trifocal lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Additionally, Spivey further teaches that the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset comprising at least a first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a first optical power, and a second lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a second optical power distinct from the first optical power, and - a second subset comprising at least a third lens holder, the third lens holder having an associated pair of third lenses, the third lenses comprising at least a near vision zone having an optical power equal to the first optical power and a far vision zone having an optical power equal to the second optical power, the third lenses being progressive additional lenses or bifocal lenses or trifocal lenses (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches a method for providing an eyewear to a user using an eyewear comprising a frame headwear configured to be worn by a user, the frame headwear comprising a front part, and at least one lens holder, each lens holder being configured to be removably fastened to the frame headwear in a predetermined mounted position and each lens holder comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses attached to said lens holder, each lens of the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses being configured to be movable relative to the lens holder while being attached to said lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5), the method comprising at least:
- providing the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5);
- providing a lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5);
- fastening the lens holder to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5);
- for each lens of the lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the lens holder to adjust the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Therefore" the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side moved and the focus of the progressive multifocal lens (30) is adjusted according to interpupillary distance (the normal" and PD box) of the consumer”),
wherein the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5), and wherein the set of at least one lens holder comprises:
a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of vision lenses with optical power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”), and
a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having optical power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that each first lens holder has an associated pair of single vision lenses with a first optical power, and each second lens holder has an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having the first optical power.
However, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21), the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses (1L, 1R) with a first optical power (See e.g. Fig. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The base prescription lenses 1L and 1R correct the power and astigmatism of the patient without any progressive correction”; C. 4, L. 7-21), and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R) with at least one zone having the first power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The adjustable progressive addition lenses 2L, 3L, 2R and 3R provide only the progressive add power but in a manner that is highly adjustable so that the patient's preferences regarding the progressive add power can be ascertained”; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the first optical power to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang with the sets of lens holders having the first optical power of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 15, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear according to claim 14, as above.
Jang further teaches that each lens holder further comprises at least two landmarks (26, 32) each of which locates a reference point of an ophthalmic lens, the method further comprising using the landmarks to adjust the position of the lens to pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Moreover" the invention is configured to conveniently confirm the adjusted position after doing the control the center position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) according to the interpupillary distance point of the consumer the pilot wire (32) is indicated on the top center part of the progressive multifocal lens (30) the scale (32) is indicated on the upper end of the secondary rim (20). If this controls the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of one secondary rim (20) among multiple secondary rims (20) according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer " the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of dissimilar secondary rim (20) is easily controlled through the scale (32) and pilot wire (32)”).
Regarding claim 16, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that the method further comprises: - moving vertically the position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear or vertically a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear to align a pupil center of an eye of the user with a landmark of a lens placed in front of the eye.
However, Saffra further teaches that a position of a nosepad (20) of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; C. 3, L. 13-50).
Saffra teaches this adjustable nosepad for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang with the adjustable nosepad of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 17, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Jang further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, the method further comprising: - providing another lens holder of the set; - switching the lens holder with the other lens holder; - for each lens of the other lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the other lens holder to adjust the position of the lens of the other lens holder to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Regarding claim 18, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Jang further teaches that the method further comprises: - mounting the frame headwear over the spectacles, and - switching in and/or out the lens holder over the spectacles (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Regarding claim 19, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 18, as above.
Jang further teaches that the method further comprises: - evaluating the fitting height of the lens using the vertical graduated scale of the lens, and - determining if the landmark indicating a near vision zone of the lens of the lens holder is in front of any part of the corresponding lens of the spectacles (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Korean Pub. No. KR 10-2009-0100508) in view of Saffra (U.S. Patent No. 7,959,287). All citations to Jang are directed toward the English machine translation of the Korean document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 20, Jang teaches a method for comparing two different lenses, the method comprising at least:
- providing a frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5);
- providing a first lens holder and a second lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5),
- for each lens holder of the first lens holder and a second lens holder:
fastening the lens holder to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5),
for each lens of the lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the lens holder to adjust the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “Therefore" the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side moved and the focus of the progressive multifocal lens (30) is adjusted according to interpupillary distance (the normal" and PD box) of the consumer”),
- switching from the first lens holder to the second lens holder at least once after adjusting the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker. Next" the lens (12) for the long distance consenting to the glasses frequency for the long distance of the consumer is cut and it wears in this rim (10) after doing the installation to the consumer. And after one secondary rim (20) is attached using the magnetic force in the front side of this rim (10) and it puts while the progressive multifocal lens (30) is from side to side controlled according to the interpupillary distance of the consumer the exact position is selected in fig. 3 as the imaginary line. And after the position of the progressive multifocal lens (30) of rest secondary rim (20) is adjusted in advance to coincide with the interpupillary distance of the grasped consumer multiple secondary rim (20) are alternately put on and while the consumer compares the performance of the different progressive multifocal lens (30) purchase is decided on.”).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 21, Jang in view of Saffra teaches the method for comparing two different lenses according to claim 20, as above.
Jang further teaches that the lenses have different optical designs, namely: different optical powers and different tint (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5: “In advance" the consumer is selectively attached and detached in the front side of the direct this rim (10) put" and this rim (10) and the performance prepares for multiple secondary rims (20) in which the different progressive multifocal lens (30) is mounted according to the radical use number and maker”).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2019/156130; hereinafter – “Hikosaka”) in view of Spivey and Saffra. All citations to Hikosaka are directed toward the U.S. Publication of the National Stage Application (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0041723), used as an English translation.
Regarding claim 1, Hikosaka teaches an eyewear comprising:
- a frame headwear (100) configured to be worn by a user, the frame headwear comprising a front part (130) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0035-0048), and
- at least one lens holder (200), each lens holder being configured to be removably fastened to the frame headwear in a predetermined mounted position and each lens holder comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (300) attached to said lens holder, each lens of the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses being configured to be movable relative to the lens holder while being attached to said lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0061-0087);
wherein the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders (210), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104), and
wherein the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of lenses with a first optical power, and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104),
wherein the lens holder comprises a first scroll wheel (223), the first scroll wheel (223) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right and left lens of the lens holder a first slide (221) and a second slide being (221) disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (2112) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (236) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0075-0077).
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that each first lens holder has an associated pair of single vision lenses with a first optical power, and each second lens holder has an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having the first optical power.
However, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21), the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses (1L, 1R) with a first optical power (See e.g. Fig. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The base prescription lenses 1L and 1R correct the power and astigmatism of the patient without any progressive correction”; C. 4, L. 7-21), and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R) with at least one zone having the first power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The adjustable progressive addition lenses 2L, 3L, 2R and 3R provide only the progressive add power but in a manner that is highly adjustable so that the patient's preferences regarding the progressive add power can be ascertained”; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the first optical power to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Hikosaka with the sets of lens holders having the first optical power of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Hikosaka with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the lens holder comprises at least two landmarks (211, 2112, 222), each of which locates a reference point of the ophthalmic lenses (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraphs 0073 and 0076-0077).
Regarding claim 3, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a vertical graduated scale (2112) to evaluate a fitting height of the lens (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 4, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a landmark (211, 2112, 222) to indicate a position of a near vision zone (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraphs 0073 and 0076-0077).
Regarding claim 5, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that each lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses is movable relative to the associated lens holder along an axis corresponding to a nasal-temporal axis of the user when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0076-0078).
Regarding claim 6, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the lens holder comprises a graduated scale (222) which indicates the distance between the reference points of the two ophthalmic lenses of the lens holder (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 8, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the lens holder comprises two circles (210) jointed by a bridge (220), the lenses (300) being positioned within the circles (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0062-0066).
Regarding claim 9, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that a position of a nosepad (233) of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder (210) relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0076, 0078, and 0083-0088).
Regarding claim 10, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders (210), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens, the right lenses of the set having identical right peripheral contour and optical centers of the right lenses being positioned in same relative position to the right contour and the left lenses of the set having identical left peripheral contour and optical centers of the left lenses being positioned in same relative position to the left contour (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104).
Additionally, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens, the right lenses of the set having same right contour and optical centers of the right lenses being positioned in same place relative to the right contour and the left lenses of the set having same left contour and optical centers of the left lenses being positioned in same place relative to the left contour (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the same contours to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, even if the eyewear of Hikosaka did not read on the claimed eyewear, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Hikosaka with the sets of lens holders having the same contours of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Regarding claim 11, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders (110, 210), each pair of ophthalmic lenses being different from one lens holder to another of the set, preferentially having different optical powers and/or different optical designs from one lens holder to another (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104).
Regarding claim 13, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 10, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset comprising at least a first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a first optical power, and a second lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a second optical power distinct from the first optical power, and - a second subset comprising at least a third lens holder, the third lens holder having an associated pair of third lenses, the third lenses comprising at least a near vision zone having an optical power equal to the first optical power and a far vision zone having an optical power equal to the second optical power, the third lenses being progressive additional lenses or bifocal lenses or trifocal lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104).
Additionally, Spivey further teaches that the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset comprising at least a first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a first optical power, and a second lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses having a second optical power distinct from the first optical power, and - a second subset comprising at least a third lens holder, the third lens holder having an associated pair of third lenses, the third lenses comprising at least a near vision zone having an optical power equal to the first optical power and a far vision zone having an optical power equal to the second optical power, the third lenses being progressive additional lenses or bifocal lenses or trifocal lenses (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Regarding claim 14, Hikosaka teaches a method for providing an eyewear to a user using an eyewear comprising a frame headwear (100) configured to be worn by a user, the frame headwear comprising a front part (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0035-0048), and at least one lens holder (200), each lens holder being configured to be removably fastened to the frame headwear in a predetermined mounted position and each lens holder comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses attached to said lens holder, each lens of the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses being configured to be movable relative to the lens holder while being attached to said lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0061-0087), the method comprising at least:
- providing the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0035-0048);
- providing a lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0061-0087);
- fastening the lens holder to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; Paragraphs 0079-0088 and 0094-0100);
- for each lens of the lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the lens holder to adjust the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0061-0087);
wherein the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders (210), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104), and
wherein the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of lenses with a first optical power, and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104),
wherein the lens holder comprises a first scroll wheel (223), the first scroll wheel (223) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right and left lens of the lens holder a first slide (221) and a second slide being (221) disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (2112) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (236) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0075-0077).
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that each first lens holder has an associated pair of single vision lenses with a first optical power, and each second lens holder has an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses with at least one zone having the first optical power.
However, Spivey teaches a device and process for progressive addition lens design comprising a set of at least two lens holders (1R, 2R, 3R, 1L, 2L, 3L), each pair of ophthalmic lenses of the set comprises a right lens and a left lens (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 11-37; C. 4, L. 7-21), the set of at least one lens holder comprises: - a first subset of at least one first lens holder, each first lens holder having an associated pair of single vision lenses (1L, 1R) with a first optical power (See e.g. Fig. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The base prescription lenses 1L and 1R correct the power and astigmatism of the patient without any progressive correction”; C. 4, L. 7-21), and - a second subset of at least one second lens holder, each second lens holder having an associated pair of progressive or bifocal addition lenses (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R) with at least one zone having the first power (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-6; C. 3, L. 11-37: “Each lens mount shown at 4 in FIG. 1A contains a lens: one for the base prescription 1L and 1R and two for the adjustable progressive addition lens pair 2L and 3L and 2R and 3R as shown in FIG. 1B…The adjustable progressive addition lenses 2L, 3L, 2R and 3R provide only the progressive add power but in a manner that is highly adjustable so that the patient's preferences regarding the progressive add power can be ascertained”; C. 4, L. 7-21).
Spivey teaches these sets of lens holders having the first optical power to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” (C. 3, L. 11-37) to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients” (C. 2, L. 16-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hikosaka with the sets of lens holders having the first optical power of Spivey to provide “a device for determination of patient's progressive addition lens design preference (referred to hereinafter as "Test Unit") which can create an adjustable progressive addition effect which spans a design space adequate to determine the patient's progressive preference” to allow “for a patient to experience how a particular progressive addition lens will affect his vision, and for helping design progressive addition lenses to help establish the best tradeoff between the distance vision field and the near vision field to best satisfy particular patients,” as taught by Spivey (C. 2, L. 16-21; C. 3, L. 11-37).
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hikosaka with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 15, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear according to claim 14, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that each lens holder further comprising at least two landmarks (211, 2112, 222) each of which locates a reference point of an ophthalmic lens, the method further comprising using the landmarks to adjust the position of the lens to pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraphs 0073 and 0076-0077).
Regarding claim 16, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the method further comprises: moving vertically the position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear or vertically a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear to align a pupil center of an eye of the user with a landmark of a lens placed in front of the eye (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0076, 0078, and 0083-0088).
Regarding claim 17, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the eyewear comprises a set of at least two lens holders, the method further comprising: - providing another lens holder of the set; - switching the lens holder with the other lens holder; - for each lens of the other lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the other lens holder to adjust the position of the lens of the other lens holder to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104).
Regarding claim 18, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that when the user wear spectacles, the method further comprises: - mounting the frame headwear over the spectacles, and - switching in and/or out the lens holder over the spectacles (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, and 7; Paragraphs 0079-0088 and 0094-0100).
Regarding claim 19, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 18, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the method further comprises: - evaluating the fitting height of the lens using the vertical graduated scale of the lens, and - determining if the landmark indicating a near vision zone of the lens of the lens holder is in front of any part of the corresponding lens of the spectacles (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraphs 0073 and 0076-0077).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka et al. (PCT Pub. No. WO 2019/156130; hereinafter – “Hikosaka”) in view of Saffra. All citations to Hikosaka are directed toward the U.S. Publication of the National Stage Application (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0041723), used as an English translation.
Regarding claim 20, Hikosaka teaches a method for comparing two different lenses, the method comprising at least:
- providing a frame headwear (100) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 7-8; Paragraphs 0035-0048);
- providing a first lens holder and a second lens holder (200) (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4-8; Paragraphs 0061-0087),
- for each lens holder of the first lens holder and a second lens holder:
fastening the lens holder to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; Paragraphs 0079-0088 and 0094-0100),
for each lens of the lens holder, moving the position of the lens relative to the lens holder to adjust the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 4; Paragraphs 0079-0088 and 0094-0100),
- switching from the first lens holder to the second lens holder at least once after adjusting the position of the lens to the pupillary distance of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4, and 7; Paragraphs 0079-0088 and 0094-0100),
wherein the lens holder comprises a first scroll wheel (223), the first scroll wheel (223) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right and left lens of the lens holder a first slide (221) and a second slide being (221) disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (2112) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (236) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0075-0077).
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that each of the lens holders comprises first and second scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the respective lens holder, the second scroll wheel being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the respective lens holder, a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel.
However, Saffra teaches eyeglass frame sizing systems and methods comprising at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65).
Saffra teaches these scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means for an arrangement that “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” (C. 3, L. 10-12) and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes” (C. 3, L. 64-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hikosaka with the scroll wheels, slides, and complementary means of Saffra as it “provides accurate centering of the rims 12 over the eye and also allows accurate centering of the lens within the frame” and “so that each can be properly positioned over the patient's eyes,” as taught by Saffra (C. 3, L. 10-12; C. 3, L. 64-65), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 21, Hikosaka in view of Saffra teaches the method for comparing two different lenses according to claim 20, as above.
Hikosaka further teaches that the lenses have different optical designs and/or different optical powers and/or different tint (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0036, 0041-0045, 0062-0068, 0091, 0094-0100, and 0102-0104).
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 16 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra, as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively above, and further in view of Funk (U.S. Patent No. 5,037,193).
Regarding claim 3, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that Jang further teaches that the lens holder comprises at least two landmarks (26, 32), each of which locates a reference point of the ophthalmic lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a vertical graduated scale to evaluate the fitting height of the lens.
However, Funk teaches a bifocal segment demonstration and measuring apparatus comprising a frame headwear (13) and a lens holder (11) holding a pair of ophthalmic lenses wherein at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses (25) comprises a vertical graduated scale (19) to evaluate the fitting height of the lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 53 – C. 3, L. 4).
Funk teaches this vertical graduated scale to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position” (C. 2, L. 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the vertical graduated scale of Funk to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position,” as taught by Funk (C. 2, L. 1-25).
Regarding claim 9, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user.
However, Funk teaches a bifocal segment demonstration and measuring apparatus comprising a frame headwear (13) and a lens holder (11) holding a pair of ophthalmic lenses wherein a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user and/or a position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear is adjustable vertically when the eyewear is worn by the user such that the associated pair of ophthalmic lenses is positioned in front of the eyes of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 53 – C. 3, L. 4).
Funk teaches this vertical adjustment to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position” (C. 2, L. 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang with the vertical adjustment of Funk to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position,” as taught by Funk (C. 2, L. 1-25), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 16, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the method for providing an eyewear to a user according to claim 14, as above.
Jang fails to explicitly disclose that the method further comprises: - moving vertically the position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear or vertically a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear to align a pupil center of an eye of the user with a landmark of a lens placed in front of the eye.
However, Funk teaches a bifocal segment demonstration and measuring apparatus comprising a frame headwear (13) and a lens holder (11) holding a pair of ophthalmic lenses including moving vertically the position of the lens holder relative to the frame headwear or vertically a position of a nosepad of the frame headwear relative to the frame headwear to align a pupil center of an eye of the user with a landmark of a lens placed in front of the eye. (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 53 – C. 3, L. 4).
Funk teaches this vertical movement to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position” (C. 2, L. 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jang with the vertical movement of Funk to “allow the measurement of the position of the bifocal segment means with respect to the eyewear” such that “a prospective wearer of a pair of eyeglasses can try out various positions of the bifocal segments to find out the most satisfactory position,” as taught by Funk (C. 2, L. 1-25), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 4 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra or Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sauer et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0205487; hereinafter – “Sauer”).
Regarding claim 4, Jang in view of Spivey and Saffra and Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra each teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Jang further teaches that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a landmark (26, 32) to indicate the position of a near vision zone (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Hikosaka further teaches that at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a landmark (211, 2112, 222) to indicate the position of a near vision zone (See e.g. Fig. 4A; Paragraphs 0073 and 0076-0077).
While Jang and Hikosaka each teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed landmark, Examiner further submits reference Sauer.
Sauer teaches a method and apparatus for checking the centering of spectacles worn by a spectacle wearer comprising a pair of ophthalmic lenses wherein at least one lens of the pair of ophthalmic lenses comprises a landmark (14, 18) to indicate the position of a near vision zone (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0033-0035 and 0038-0045).
Sauer teaches this landmark such that “checking of the centering is possible in an easier and more precise fashion” (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, even if Jang or Hikosaka failed to explicitly disclose the claimed landmark, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Jang or Hikosaka with the landmark of Sauer such that “checking of the centering is possible in an easier and more precise fashion,” as in Sauer (Paragraph 0015).
Claim(s) 7 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang.
Regarding claim 7, Hikosaka in view of Spivey and Saffra teaches the eyewear according to claim 1, as above.
Hikosaka fails to explicitly disclose that the each lens holder is magnetically fastened to the frame headwear.
However, Jang teaches test glasses for multifocus lenses comprising a frame headwear and lens holders wherein the each lens holder is magnetically fastened to the frame headwear (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 4-5).
Jang teaches this magnetic fastening as a suitable choice such that “the attaching is possible in this rim and the position which is always exact” and such that “the test wears and the user walks when walking. The focus lens does not rotate or escape from the assist frame, so that accurate testing can be performed” (P. 5) and “so that the consumer choose the progressive multifocal lens which is the rapid servo and evenly gives many progressive multifocal lens in which has the difference according to the radical use number and maker of the kind in mind” (P. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyewear of Hikosaka with the magnetic fastening of Jang as a suitable choice such that “the attaching is possible in this rim and the position which is always exact” and such that “the test wears and the user walks when walking. The focus lens does not rotate or escape from the assist frame, so that accurate testing can be performed” (P. 5) and “so that the consumer choose the progressive multifocal lens which is the rapid servo and evenly gives many progressive multifocal lens in which has the difference according to the radical use number and maker of the kind in mind,” as taught by Jang (P. 2 and P. 5). Additionally, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., eyewear) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a clamping fastener) with other component(s) (i.e., a magnetic fastener), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution (i.e., eyewear having a magnetic fastener) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the magnetic fastener of Jang for the clamping fastener of Hikosaka since the result would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-16, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Saffra, as detailed above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-20, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Jang does not disclose or suggest a lens holder frame including first and second slides cooperating with complementary means provided on the right and left lenses” and that “Saffra does not disclose a removable lens holder carrying a right/left ophthalmic lens pair, nor lenses having complementary means cooperating with slides in such a removable holder.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, Examiner notes that the limitation upon which Applicant relies, i.e. “a first slide and a second slide being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel,” is indefinite and not supported by the original disclosure. Nevertheless, Saffra teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed structure since Saffra teaches at least one lens holder (12) comprising an associated pair of ophthalmic lenses (14), wherein the lens holder comprises first (33, 73) and second (71) scroll wheels, the first scroll wheel (33, 73) being configured so that rotation of the first scroll wheel adjusts a distance between the right lens and the left lens of the lens holder, the second scroll wheel (71) being configured so that rotation of the second scroll wheel adjusts a vertical height of the lenses relative to the lens holder (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), a first slide (26) and a second slide (26) being disposed in a frame of the respective lens holder, each right lens and left lens respectively comprising a first complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the first scroll wheel, and a second complementary mean (27, 34) configured to be inserted in the second scroll wheel (See e.g. Figs. 1A and 4; C. 2, L. 59 – C. 3, L. 12; C. 3, L. 51-65), as detailed above. Thus, Examiner maintains that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as detailed previously and above.
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 Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights