DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicant’s Remarks filed 18 March 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 4 of remarks, filed 18 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houbrechts et al. (US 2012/0283825 A1), “Houbrechts” in view of Iizuka et al. (US 2011/0082562 A1), “Iizuka”.
Regarding claim 1, Houbrechts teaches an intraocular lens comprising: a base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2) having anterior and posterior surfaces (Fig. 2, anterior and posterior faces 4, 5 respectively) that are shaped for producing a first optical power (Fig. 2, anterior and posterior faces 4, 5 have curvatures which direct a portion of incident light [0038]); a diffractive structure (Fig. 3, relief 8) formed in one of the surfaces (Fig. 2, anterior surface 4) of the base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2) including overlapping first and second diffractive patterns over a common aperture for producing second and third optical powers (Figs. 3-4b, relief 8 is formed by the superposition of first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10 and generating multiple focal points and optical powers [0039]); and the second optical power (Fig. 4a, first diffractive profile 9 creates first diffractive focal point 11 [0039]) being an uneven division [0046] of the third optical power (Fig. 4b, second diffractive profile 10 creates second diffractive focal point 12 [0039]); wherein the first and second diffractive patterns (Figs. 4a-4b, first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10) convey the first optical power through zero order diffraction for forming a distance focus (Figs. 2-3, focal point 7 is a focal point for far vision through zero order diffraction [0038]); the first and second diffractive patterns (Figs. 4a-4b, first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10) provide for producing the second and third optical powers (Fig. 2, first and second diffractive focal points, 11, 12) through a first order diffraction for forming in combination with the first optical power respective intermediate and near foci (Fig. 2, first and second diffractive focal points 11, 12 are of orders +1 and are focal points for near vision and intermediate vision respectively [0039]); and the diffractive structure (Fig. 3, relief 8) is centered about an optical axis (Fig. 2, optical axis 6) of the base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2), and the first and second diffractive patterns (Figs. 4a-4b, first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10) have step heights configured to be separately varied (Fig. 3, relief 8 comprising first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 further comprise large and small sawteeth 13, 14 forming steps [0045]) such that the distance focus will receive an increasing portion of optical energy transmitted through the common aperture as a function of radial distance [0041-0043] from the optical axis (Fig. 6, with increasing aperture, increasingly more light will be directed towards the refractive focal point 7, to the detriment of the diffractive focal points 11 and 12 [0047]), but fails to teach the increasing portion of the optical energy will be derived more from a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the near focus than a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the intermediate focus.
Iizuka teaches a multifocal IOL wherein the increasing portion of the optical energy will be derived more from a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the near focus than a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the intermediate focus (Figs. 20A-C, energy for distance vision increases as energy for near vision decreases as pupil diameter increases [0107]). Iizuka discloses that the energy distribution of light quantity for distance and near vision varies depending on pupil diameter regardless of whether the lens is refractive or diffractive [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the diffractive lens taught by Houbrechts with the optical energy distribution taught by Iizuka in order to provide a lens that is more reactive to bodily changes such as pupil diameter to provide a better image output.
Regarding claim 6, Houbrechts teaches in which the step heights (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) are varied as functions of their radial distance from the optical axis (Figs. 4a-b, height of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are a function of the radial distance relative to the optical axis [0041-0043]), and the functions differ over different ranges of the radial distance (Figs. 3-4b, first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are defined by equations 1 and 2, respectively, and when superimposed are defined by another formula [0040-0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Houbrechts teaches an intraocular lens comprising: a base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2) having anterior and posterior surfaces (Fig. 2, anterior and posterior faces 4, 5 respectively) that are shaped for producing a first optical power that directs incident light through a distance focus (Fig. 2, anterior and posterior faces 4, 5 have curvatures which direct a portion of incident light [0038]); a diffractive structure (Fig. 3, relief 8) formed in one of the surfaces (Fig. 2, anterior surface 4) of the base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2) over a common aperture for producing second and third optical powers (Figs. 3-4b, relief 8 is formed by the superposition of first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10 and generating multiple focal points and optical powers [0039]) that in combination with the first optical power direct incident light through respective intermediate and near foci (Fig. 2, first and second diffractive focal points 11, 12 are of orders +1 and are focal points for near vision and intermediate vision respectively [0039]); the diffractive structure including a first diffractive pattern (Figs. 4a, first diffractive profile 9) for producing the second optical power through a first order diffraction (Fig. 2, first diffractive focal point 11 is of order +1 for near vision [0039]); the diffractive structure including a second diffractive pattern (Fig. 4b, second diffractive profile 10) for producing the third optical power through a first order diffraction (Fig. 2, second diffractive focal point 12 is of order +1 for intermediate vision [0039]); and the first and second diffraction patterns (Figs. 4a-b, first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) being superimposed over the common aperture (Figs. 3-4b, relief 8 is formed by the superposition of first diffractive profile 9 and second diffractive profile 10 and generating multiple focal points and optical powers [0039]) and having non-harmonic periodicities so that a second order diffraction through the first diffractive pattern extends the focal depth of the near focus (second diffractive profile 10 has periodicity half of the first diffractive profile 9 [0045] and the periodicity may comprise a different ratio between the diffractive profiles [0052]); wherein the diffractive structure (Fig. 3, relief 8) is centered about an optical axis (Fig. 2, optical axis 6) of the base refractive structure (Fig. 2, central optical body 2), and the first and second diffractive patterns have step heights configured to be separately varied (Fig. 3, relief 8 comprising first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 further comprise large and small sawteeth 13, 14 forming steps [0045]) such that the distance focus will receive an increasing portion of optical energy transmitted through the common aperture as a function of radial distance [0041-0043] from the optical axis (Fig. 6, with increasing aperture, increasingly more light will be directed towards the refractive focal point 7, to the detriment of the diffractive focal points 11 and 12 [0047]), but fails to teach the increasing portion of the optical energy will be derived more from a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the near focus than a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the intermediate focus.
Iizuka teaches an IOL having multiple diffractive patterns wherein the increasing portion of the optical energy will be derived more from a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the near focus than a corresponding decrease in the optical energy received by the intermediate focus (Fig. 2, fraction of optical energy directed toward near and far foci increases relative to intermediate foci [0050]). Iizuka discloses that the diffractive zones vary in a controlled manner as a function of distance from the optical axis so as to broaden optical energy profiles so as to provide intermediate vision while preserving the near and far foci [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intraocular lens taught by Houbrechts with the optical energy profiles taught by Iizuka in order to provide a larger range of vision.
Regarding claim 13, Houbrechts teaches in which the second optical power contributed by the first diffractive pattern (Fig. 4a, first diffractive profile 9 creates first diffractive focal point 11 [0039]) is 1.6 diopters (Fig. 2, focal point for near vision corresponds to between +2.5 and +5 diopters [0020]) and the third optical power contributed by the second diffractive pattern (Fig. 4b, second diffractive profile 10 creates second diffractive focal point 12 [0039]) is 3.1 diopters (Fig. 2, focal length of focal point 12 in one embodiment is 600 mm for +1.75 diopters [0043]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include diffractive patterns with particular diopters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Regarding claim 14, Houbrechts teaches wherein two different apodization functions (Equations 1 and 2 [0040], [0042]) are applied over different radial distances from the optical axis (Equations 1 and 2 define diffractive profiles as a function of the radial distance r relative to the optical axis [0041], [0043]) for varying the step heights of the first and second diffraction patterns (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) as a function of radial distance [0041-0043].
Regarding claim 15, Houbrechts teaches wherein two different apodization functions (Equations 1 and 2 [0040], [0042]) are applied over different radial distances from the optical axis (Equations 1 and 2 define diffractive profiles as a function of the radial distance r relative to the optical axis [0041], [0043]) for varying the step heights of the first and second diffraction patterns (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) as a function of radial distance [0041-0043].
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houbrechts et al. (US 2012/0283825 A1), “Houbrechts” in view of Iizuka et al. (US 2011/0082562 A1), “Iizuka”, and further in view of Canovas Vidal et al. (US 2017/0245987 A1), “Canovas Vidal”.
Regarding claim 4, Houbrechts teaches the step heights of the second diffractive pattern (Fig. 4b, step of second profile 10) and the step heights of the first diffractive pattern (Fig. 4a, step of first profile 9) as a function of the radial distance from the optical axis (Figs. 4a-b, height of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are a function of the radial distance relative to the optical axis [0041-0043]), but Houbrechts in view of Iizuka fails to teach the step heights of the second diffractive pattern are varied more than the step heights of the first diffractive pattern.
Canovas Vidal teaches an intraocular lens wherein the step heights of the second diffractive pattern are varied more than the step heights of the first diffractive pattern (step height of central zone is lower or higher than the step height of the peripheral zone [0114]). Canovas Vidal discloses that the total number of echelettes, step heights, and position of the echelettes may vary [0126]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Houbrechts with the variable step heights taught by Canovas Vidal in order to provide different focusing capabilities.
Regarding claim 10, Houbrechts teaches the step heights of the second diffractive pattern (Fig. 4b, step of second profile 10) and the step heights of the first diffractive pattern (Fig. 4a, step of first profile 9) as a function of the radial distance from the optical axis (Figs. 4a-b, height of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are a function of the radial distance relative to the optical axis [0041-0043]), but Houbrechts in view of Iizuka fails to teach the step heights of the second diffractive pattern are varied more than the step heights of the first diffractive pattern.
Canovas Vidal teaches an intraocular lens wherein the step heights of the second diffractive pattern are varied more than the step heights of the first diffractive pattern (step height of central zone is lower or higher than the step height of the peripheral zone [0114]). Canovas Vidal discloses that the total number of echelettes, step heights, and position of the echelettes may vary [0126]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Houbrechts with the variable step heights taught by Canovas Vidal in order to provide different focusing capabilities.
Regarding claim 11, Houbrechts teaches in which the step heights (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) are varied as functions of their radial distance from the optical axis (Figs. 4a-b, height of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are a function of the radial distance relative to the optical axis [0041-0043]), and the functions differ over different ranges of the radial distance (Figs. 3-4b, first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10 are defined by equations 1 and 2, respectively, and when superimposed are defined by another formula [0040-0045]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houbrechts et al. (US 2012/0283825 A1), “Houbrechts” in view of Iizuka et al. (US 2011/0082562 A1), “Iizuka”, and further in view of Bandhauer et al. (EP 2527908 A1), “Bandhauer”.
Regarding claim 7, Houbrechts teaches the step heights of at least one of the diffraction patterns (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) vary with radial distance [0041-0043], but Houbrechts in view of Iizuka fails to teach they vary in a non-progressive manner.
Bandhauer teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the step heights (Fig. 17, echelettes 230) vary in a non-progressive manner (Fig. 17, phase plates 212, 214, 220 comprise varying step sizes which are non-progressive [0103]). Bandhauer discloses that the number of echelettes having the same height may be 3 to 5 with a larger number being favored where better diffractive performance is desired, and a smaller number being favored where a smaller outer diameter is favored [0103]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Houbrechts with the non-progressive step heights taught by Bandhauer in order to provide a better diffractive performance or smaller outer diameter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houbrechts et al. (US 2012/0283825 A1), “Houbrechts” in view of Iizuka et al. (US 2011/0082562 A1), “Iizuka”, and Canovas Vidal et al. (US 2017/0245987 A1), “Canovas Vidal”, and further in view of Bandhauer et al. (EP 2527908 A1), “Bandhauer”.
Regarding claim 12, Houbrechts teaches in which the step heights of at least one of the diffraction patterns (Figs. 4a-b, step of first and second diffractive profiles 9, 10) but Houbrechts in view of Iizuka and Canovas Vidal fails to teach they vary in a non-progressive manner with the radial distance.
Bandhauer teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the step heights (Fig. 17, echelettes 230) vary in a non-progressive manner (Fig. 17, phase plates 212, 214, 220 comprise varying step sizes which are non-progressive [0103]). Bandhauer discloses that the number of echelettes having the same height may be 3 to 5 with a larger number being favored where better diffractive performance is desired, and a smaller number being favored where a smaller outer diameter is favored [0103]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lens taught by Houbrechts with the non-progressive step heights taught by Bandhauer in order to provide a better diffractive performance or smaller outer diameter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA GISELLE B RIOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS BARRETT can be reached at (571) 272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/G.G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights