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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 appears to have extraneous markings after each “of” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear whether these markings are intentional or not. If they are intentional, Examiner will make note as they do not impact the claim interpretation. If they are not intentional, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sarver et al. (US 2019/0307556 A1), “Sarver”.
Regarding claim 1, Sarver teaches
A lens device (Fig. 4), comprising a base lens (Fig. 4, central optical zone 46) formed with a plurality of diffractive zones (Fig. 11, high power lenses),
each having a negative diffractive subzone (Fig. 11, negative power lenses) and a positive diffractive subzone (Fig. 11, positive power lenses),
said negative and said positive diffractive subzones being arranged alternately (Fig. 11, high-power lenses alternate in positive and negative power [0054]),
wherein each diffractive subzone has a constant-sign curvature along a radial direction of said base lens (Fig. 12, [0054-0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Sarver teaches
wherein said base lens (Fig. 4, central optical zone 46) is also formed with a plurality of refractive zones (Fig. 9, profiles may be refractive or diffractive in nature [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Sarver teaches
wherein said refractive zones (Fig. 9, profiles may be refractive or diffractive in nature [0052]) are offset from said base lens (Fig. 4, central optical zone 46 is distanced away from virtual aperture 48 which comprises high-power lenses [0040])
to compensate a phase difference induced by light diffracted from said diffractive zones and refracted from said refractive zones (Fig. 4, light rays that intersect virtual aperture 48 region are dispersed widely downstream from the IOL [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Sarver teaches
comprising at least two radially separated segments of a non-diffractive region (Figs. 9 and 11, profiles may be refractive in nature [0052] and each lens is radially separated (Fig. 11)).
Regarding claim 13, Sarver teaches
wherein each of the positive diffractive subzone starts from a plane at which its adjacent negative diffractive subzones ends (Fig. 11, high-power lenses alternate in positive and negative power [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Sarver teaches
wherein an optical surface of the device is devoid of any vertical or substantially vertical steps (Fig. 12, high-power lenses comprise smooth profiles and transition zones [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Sarver teaches
wherein at least one diffractive zone (Fig. 11, high-powered lenses) comprises a step between a respective negative diffractive subzone and a respective positive diffractive subzone (Fig. 12, transition zones),
said step separating a plane where said respective positive diffractive subzone starts from a plane at which said respective negative diffractive subzone ends (Fig. 12, transition zones surround high-power optic zone of each high-power lens [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Sarver teaches
A lens device (Fig. 4), comprising a base lens (Fig. 4, central optical zone 46) formed with a plurality of positive diffractive zones (Fig. 11, positive power lenses),
a plurality of negative diffractive zones (Fig. 11, negative power lenses),
and a step separating a plane where one of said positive diffractive zones starts from a plane at a negative diffractive zone adjacent to said one of said positive diffractive zones ends (Fig. 12, transition zones surround high-power optic zone of each high-power lens [0056]),
wherein each diffractive zone has a constant-sign curvature along a radial direction of said base lens (Fig. 12, [0054-0056]).
Regarding claim 21, Sarver teaches
wherein said base lens (Fig. 4, central optical zone 46) is also formed with a plurality of refractive zones (Fig. 9, profiles may be refractive or diffractive in nature [0052]).
Regarding claim 35, Sarver teaches
comprising a central zone configured as a negative diffractive zone (Fig. 11, negative power lens located closer to central of virtual aperture);
and a negative diffractive peripheral zone at a periphery of said base lens (Fig. 11, negative power lens located closer to periphery of virtual aperture).
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 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarver et al. (US 2019/0307556 A1), “Sarver” in view of Lux et al. (US 2018/0303601 A1), “Lux”.
Regarding claim 2, Sarver teaches at least one of said negative (Fig. 11, negative power lenses) and said positive diffractive subzones (Fig. 11, positive power lenses), but fails to teach the subzones are characterized by a sawtooth profile.
Lux teaches a multifocal lens comprising a sawtooth profile (Fig. 3, saw-tooth-shaped diffractive structure 6 [0049]). Sarver discloses that the diffractive structures used in the lens are structures with well-known behaviors that are easy to manufacture [0012]. 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 subzones taught by Sarver with the sawtooth profile taught by Lux in order to enable easy manufacturing.
Regarding claim 20, Sarver teaches at least one of said negative and said positive diffractive zones (Fig. 11, negative and positive power lenses), but fails to teach are characterized by a sawtooth profile.
Lux teaches a multifocal lens comprising a sawtooth profile (Fig. 3, saw-tooth-shaped diffractive structure 6 [0049]). Sarver discloses that the diffractive structures used in the lens are structures with well-known behaviors that are easy to manufacture [0012]. 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 subzones taught by Sarver with the sawtooth profile taught by Lux in order to enable easy manufacturing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarver et al. (US 2019/0307556 A1), “Sarver” in view of Simpson et al. (US 2010/0131060 A1), “Simpson”.
Regarding claim 4, Sarver teaches wherein a base power of all diffractive zones (Fig. 11, high power lenses) is the same, and the refractive zones (Fig. 9, profiles may be refractive or diffractive in nature [0052]) but fails to teach wherein a power of all refractive zones is different from the base power of all the diffractive zones.
Simpson teaches a multifocal ophthalmic lens wherein a power of all refractive zones is different from the base power of all the diffractive zones (refractive regions focusing power contribute only to the lens’s far-focus power while diffractive region directs energy to both near and far foci of the lens [0035]). Simpson discloses that the energy directed for far-focus power can be increased by reducing step heights and/or adjusting the curvature of the central refractive distance zone [0035]. 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 and refractive zones taught by Sarver with the power distribution taught by Simpson in order to increase far vision capabilities of the lens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0041664 A1, US Pat. No. 8636796 B2, US Pat. No. 6536899 B1, US 2017/0219846 A1, and US 2013/0107201 A1.
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, JERRAH C EDWARDS can be reached at (408) 918-7557. 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
/JERRAH EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774