DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 11 and 13 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 20150253586 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20100041318 A1), Chauveau et al. (US 20140085627 A1) and Mandler et al. (US 20070229756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amir discloses in at least figures lA-1D, a semi-finished lens (ophthalmic lens
can be semi-finished lens blank paragraph [0078]) comprising:
an object-side surface and an eyeball-side surface (a semi-finished lens blank has an object side
front face and eyeball side back face paragraph [0078]),
wherein the semi-finished lens ophthalmic lens can be semi-finished lens blank paragraph [0078]) is to be an eyeglass lens completed by processing the eyeball-side surface (where the eyeball side can be the future finished face paragraph [0078]),
the object-side surface includes an optical region and a non-optical region (the object side front
face can have a face with the features of the invention paragraphs [0041-0043] including an optical
central zone 10 and a non-optical peripheral zone 15 paragraph [0039]),
the optical region has an optical surface having a predetermined design shape (the central zone
10 has the optical properties paragraph [0082]),
the non-optical region has a design shape that is different from that of the optical surface (the
peripheral zone 15 paragraph has constraints imposed on it to not be an optical region [0035]).
Amir does not disclose, the optical region and the non-optical region change value of curvature
discontinuously at a boundary between the optical region and the non-optical region,
the optical region and the non-optical region are adjacent to each other
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the optical region increases from the center of the
semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens, and
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the non-optical region is constant or increases from
the center of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens at a smaller ratio
than in the vertical direction of the optical region, and
the optical region is larger than a shape of a frame to which the eyeglass lens is to be mounted.
However Schneider discloses in at least figure 1, the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig. 1) and the non-optical region (the transition area 5 is optically ineffective because it is formed by the
machining allowance outside the prescriptive surface 2.1 and is used as a transition from the
prescriptive surface 2.1 to the rim 3.2 paragraph [0042] where it is necessary that the curvature radius
to be smaller in the transition area than in the prescriptive surface so that the ophthalmic lens thickens
again towards the rim paragraph [0018] and the machining allowance 5.1 is used to retain the round
shape and minimum lens thickness for the purpose of fasting the lens while the prescriptive surface 2.1
is formed and polished as the effective region paragraph [0059]) change value of curvature (Ru is the
curvature of the transition area 5 and Rb is the curvature of the prescriptive surface fig. 1) discontinuously (the transition between the prescriptive surface 2.1 and the transition surface 5 is discontinuous paragraph [0054]) at a boundary between (prescriptive surface rim 2.5 is between the prescriptive surface 2.1 and the transition area 5 fig. 1) the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig. 1) and the non-optical region (the transition area 5 fig. 1),
the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig. 1) and the non-optical region (transition area 5
fig. 1) are adjacent to each other (a transition area 5 consequently generated adjacent to the
prescriptive surface 2.1 paragraph [0054] and is optically ineffective because it is formed by the
machining allowance outside the prescriptive surface 2.1 and is used as a transition from the
prescriptive surface 2.1 to the rim 3.2 paragraph [0042] where it is necessary that the curvature radius
to be smaller in the transition area than in the prescriptive surface so that the ophthalmic lens thickens
again towards the rim paragraph [0018] and the machining allowance 5.1 is used to retain the round
shape and minimum lens thickness for the purpose of fasting the lens while the prescriptive surface 2.1
is formed and polished as the effective region paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a discontinuity in the curvature between the optical and non-optical regions
as taught by Schneider in the lens of Amir. The discontinuity of the curvature can be used as a boundary
between the optical region and non-optical region.
Additionally Chauveau discloses in at least figure 2A, an amount of sag in a vertical direction of
the optical region increases from the center of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semifinished lens (the sag increases from -0.2 towards 0 in the optical region fig. 2A), and
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the non-optical region is constant or increases from the center
of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens at a smaller ratio than in the
vertical direction of the optical region (the sag has a slight increase outside the optical region toward the
edge were it becomes constant and changes a smaller ration outside the optical region fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention to define a sag as taught by Chauveau in the semi-finished lens of Amir. The sag
affects the power profile of the diopter and represents to connection of the two surfaces (paragraph [0049]).
Further Mandler discloses in at least figures 2a-c, the optical region (the concave surface 4 of optical quality paragraph [0075]) is larger than (the concave surface 4 is larger than the cut lines 13 for the lens fig. 2b) a shape of a frame to which the eyeglass lens is to be mounted (the two section lines 13 in correspond to the provided lens frame paragraph [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention to have an optical region larger than the lens shape as taught by Mandler in the semi-finished lens of Amir. The cut lines can be exact or have a size allowance so that the optician can adapt it (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein the non-optical region is a cutting allowance
for when the eyeglass lens is processed.
However Mandler further discloses, wherein the non-optical region (ring fixture 3 fig. 2b) is a cutting allowance for when the eyeglass lens is processed (the ring fixture 3 is cut when the concave surface 4 of optical quality is made by means of a conventional milling paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention to have a non-optical cutting allowance as taught by Mandler in the semi-finished lens of Amir. The cut lines can be exact or have a size allowance so that the optician can adapt it (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Amir further discloses, wherein the non-optical region includes at least a
portion of an outer edge portion of the semi-finished lens (the non-optical peripheral region 15 is the
outer edge portion of the semi-finished lens fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Amir further discloses, wherein the shape of the optical region is set according to the shape of the frame (the dimensions of each zone are not fixed and may be set depending on the frame in which the ophthalmic lens is intended to be fitted and on the prescription paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 13, Amir discloses in at least figures lA-1D, A method for manufacturing an
eyeglass lens (ophthalmic lens paragraph [0078]) having a lens power that corresponds to a prescription
value of a lens (the central zone 10 conventionally provides a power correction that is prescribed by a
prescription paragraph [0106]), the method comprising:
preparing a semi-finished lens (ophthalmic lens can be semi-finished lens blank paragraph
[0078]) having an object-side surface and an eyeball-side surface (a semi-finished lens blank has an
object side front face and eyeball side back face paragraph [0078]); and
processing the eyeball-side surface of the semi-finished lens (ophthalmic lens can be semifinished lens blank paragraph [0078]) according to the prescription value of the lens (where the eyeball side can be the future finished face paragraph [0078]),
wherein the object-side surface of the semi-finished lens (ophthalmic lens can be semi-finished lens blank paragraph [0078]) includes an optical region and a non-optical region (the object side front face can have a face with the features of the invention paragraphs [0041-0043] including an optical central zone 10 and a non-optical peripheral zone 15 paragraph [0039]) that have different design shapes (the central zone 10 has the optical properties paragraph [0082] and the peripheral zone 15 paragraph has constraints imposed on it to not be an optical region [0035]).
Amir does not disclose, the optical region and the non-optical region change value of curvature
discontinuously at a boundary between the optical region and the non-optical region,
the optical region and the non-optical region are adjacent to each other,
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the optical region increases from the center of the
semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens, and
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the non-optical region is constant or increases from
the center of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens at a smaller ratio
than in the vertical direction of the optical region, and
the optical region is larger than a shape of a frame to which the eyeglass lens is to be mounted.
However Schneider discloses in at least figure 1, the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig.
1) and the non-optical region (a transition area 5 consequently generated adjacent to the prescriptive
surface 2.1 paragraph [0054] The transition area 5 is optically ineffective because it is formed by the
machining allowance outside the prescriptive surface 2.1 and is used as a transition from the
prescriptive surface 2.1 to the rim 3.2 paragraph [0042] where it is necessary that the curvature radius
to be smaller in the transition area than in the prescriptive surface so that the ophthalmic lens thickens
again towards the rim paragraph [0018] and the machining allowance 5.1 is used to retain the round
shape and minimum lens thickness for the purpose of fasting the lens while the prescriptive surface 2.1
is formed and polished as the effective region paragraph [0059]) change value of curvature (Ru is the
curvature of the transition area 5 and Rb is the curvature of the prescriptive surface fig. 1)
discontinuously (the transition between the prescriptive surface 2.1 and the transition surface 5 is
discontinuous paragraph [0054]) at a boundary between (prescriptive surface rim 2.5 is between the prescriptive surface 2.1 and the transition area 5 fig. 1) the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig. 1) and the non-optical region (the transition area 5 fig. 1),
the optical region (prescriptive surface 2.1 fig. 1) and the non-optical region (transition area 5 fig. 1) are adjacent to each other (a transition area 5 consequently generated adjacent to the
prescriptive surface 2.1 paragraph [0054] and is optically ineffective because it is formed by the
machining allowance outside the prescriptive surface 2.1 and is used as a transition from the
prescriptive surface 2.1 to the rim 3.2 paragraph [0042] where it is necessary that the curvature radius
to be smaller in the transition area than in the prescriptive surface so that the ophthalmic lens thickens
again towards the rim paragraph [0018] and the machining allowance 5.1 is used to retain the round
shape and minimum lens thickness for the purpose of fasting the lens while the prescriptive surface 2.1
is formed and polished as the effective region paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a discontinuity in the curvature between the optical and non-optical regions
as taught by Schneider in the lens of Amir. The discontinuity of the curvature can be used as a boundary
between the optical region and non-optical region.
Additionally Chauveau discloses in at least figure 2A, an amount of sag in a vertical direction of
the optical region increases from the center of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semifinished lens (the sag increases from -0.2 towards 0 in the optical region fig. 2A), and
an amount of sag in a vertical direction of the non-optical region is constant or increases from the center of the semi-finished lens to the peripheral edge of the semi-finished lens at a smaller ratio than in the vertical direction of the optical region (the sag has a slight increase outside the optical region toward the edge were it becomes constant and changes a smaller ration outside the optical region fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention to define a sag as taught by Chauveau in the semi-finished lens of Amir. The sag
affects the power profile of the diopter and represents to connection of the two surfaces (paragraph [0049]).
Further Mandler discloses in at least figures 2a-c, the optical region (the concave surface 4 of optical quality paragraph [0075]) is larger than (the concave surface 4 is larger than the cut lines 13 for the lens fig. 2b) a shape of a frame to which the eyeglass lens is to be mounted (the two section lines 13 in correspond to the provided lens frame paragraph [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention to have an optical region larger than the lens shape as taught by Mandler in the semi-finished lens of Amir. The cut lines can be exact or have a size allowance so that the optician can adapt it (paragraph [0081]).
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 20150253586 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20100041318 A1), Chauveau et al. (US 20140085627 A1) and Mandler et al. (US 20070229756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Weatherby (US 20130107205 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein the optical region and the non-optical region have different
curvatures in at least one of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction.
However Weatherby discloses in at least figures 1-3b, wherein the optical region and the non-optical region have different curvatures in at least one of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (the curvatures of the optical region 211 differ in both the horizontal and vertical directions as shown
below in fig. 3b because the rear lens surface 218 in the edge zone 215 has a substantially flat profile in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the prescription lens 200 paragraph [0035]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have different curvatures in the vertical and horizontal directions as taught by Weatherby in the lens of Amir. The different curvatures allow the lens to match the frame and the prescription (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein curvature in a vertical direction of the optical region is larger than curvature in a vertical direction of the non-optical region.
However Weatherby discloses in at least figures 1-3b, wherein curvature in a vertical direction
of the optical region is larger than curvature in a vertical direction of the non-optical region (the vertical curvature of the optical region 211 is larger than the vertical curvature of the non-optical regions shown
below in fig. 3b because the rear lens surface 218 in the edge zone 215 has a substantially flat profile in
a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the prescription lens 200 paragraph [0035]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a larger curvature in the vertical direction of the optical region as taught by
Weatherby in the lens of Amir. The different curvatures allow the lens to match the frame and the
prescription (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein curvature in a vertical direction of the non-optical region is
different from curvature in a horizontal direction of the non-optical region.
However Weatherby discloses in at least figures 1-3b, wherein curvature in a vertical direction
of the non-optical region is different from curvature in a horizontal direction of the non-optical region
(the horizontal curvature of the non-optical region 215 is different from the vertical curvature as shown
below in fig. 3b because the rear lens surface 218 in the edge zone 215 has a substantially flat profile in
a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the prescription lens 200 paragraph [0035] resulting Ina
slight curve towards the optical region in the horizontal direction as shown below in fig.3b).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a different curvature in the vertical direction of the non-optical region than
the horizontal direction of the non-optical region as taught by Weatherby in the lens of Amir. The
different curvatures allow the lens to match the frame and the prescription (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein curvature in a horizontal direction of the non-optical region is
larger than curvature in a vertical direction of the non-optical region.
However Weatherby discloses in at least figures 1-3b, wherein curvature in a horizontal
direction of the non-optical region is larger than curvature in a vertical direction of the non-optical
region (the horizontal curvature of the non-optical region 215 is larger than vertical curvature as shown
below in fig. 3b because the rear lens surface 218 in the edge zone 215 has a substantially flat profile in
a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the prescription lens 200 paragraph [0035] resulting Ina
slight curve towards the optical region in the horizontal direction as shown below in fig. 3b).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have a larger curvature in the vertical direction of the non-optical region than the
horizontal direction of the non-optical region as taught by Weatherby in the lens of Amir. The different
curvatures allow the lens to match the frame and the prescription (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Amir, Schneider, Chauveau and Mandler discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Amir does not disclose, wherein a material of the semi-finished lens is plastic.
However Weatherby discloses in at least figures 1-3b, wherein a material of the semi-finished
lens is plastic (the prescription lens 200 in one embodiment is formed of a transparent material such as
glass or plastic paragraph [0038]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a plastic material as taught by Weatherby for the lens of Amir. The plastic is
transparent and can be used the same as glass (paragraph [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quiroga et al. (US 20160377886 A1) discloses an ophthalmic lens with different optical powers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights