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 Status
Applicant’s Remarks and Amendments filed 15 September 2025 have been entered. Claims 2-6, 10 are cancelled. Claims 48-50 are new. Claims 1, 7-9, 11-20, and 48-50 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Weeber would not be modified in view of Zhao” because “Weeber teaches reduc[ing] light scatter” (see page 5 of remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant relies on [0012], [0019], [0056], and [0081] to teach a reduction of light scatter in the Weeber reference. Weeber teaches that the invention’s embodiments “provide monofocal and/or multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses having reduced light scatter and/or improved light energy distribution…through subtle shaping of echelettes” and further that the diffractive ophthalmic lenses having multiple foci with varying diffractive orders for near or far vision [0012]. It appears that this “reduced light scatter” is merely equated with “limiting the light energy directed to other unwanted diffractive orders or non-viewing diffractive orders”, and that by limiting the light energy, “even at the cost of directing more total light energy to other…non-viewing diffractive orders…dysphotopsia may be mitigated” [0012] (dysphotopsia being unwanted visual phenomena such as light streaks, halos or dark shadows). Examiner interprets this to mean that Weeber’s invention utilizes its echelettes and shaping to purposefully direct light for near and far vision focal points for best viewing capabilities of the lens, or as Weeber puts it, for “improved light energy distribution” [0012] as stated before, without the unwanted effects of dysphotopsia. Similarly, Zhao teaches that the invention disclosed “related to an intraocular lens…in order to focus incoming light toward a retina… which includes roughening portions of the lens in order to reduce glare due to non-focused light directed toward the retina from the intraocular lens” [0001], and further, that “these glare effects…may be perceived as haloes, arcs of light, flashing of light, as well as shadows” [0006]. Therefore, it appears that both Weeber and Zhao are focused on lenses that solve similar problems of dysphotopsia and would further be obvious to modify one reference in view of the other, in this case Weeber in view of Zhao.
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 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US 20090268155 a1), “Weeber” in view of Zhao et al. (US 20120032363 A1), “Zhao”.
Regarding claim 1, Weeber teaches an ophthalmic lens (Fig. 2A, multifocal lens 20) comprising: an optic (Fig. 2B) including a diffractive profile (Fig. 2A, diffractive profile 23) including at least one echelette (Fig. 2A, echelettes 26) having an optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) and a transition zone (Fig. 3A, step 31), but fails to teach an elevated surface roughness, wherein the elevated surface roughness is configured to scatter light.
Zhao teaches an IOL comprising an elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24), wherein the elevated surface roughness is configured to scatter light (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24 provides a random scattering surface [0037]). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 transition zone taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness and its capabilities taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 11, Weeber teaches the transition zone (Fig. 3A, step 31), but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness comprises a textured pattern.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24) comprises a textured pattern (Fig. 8, microscopic views of roughened surface 24 forming a patter varying from Ra 45 to Ra 490 [0028]). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 ophthalmic lens taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 12, Weeber teaches the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30), but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness has a greater roughness than a surface of the optical zone.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24) has a greater roughness than a surface of the optical zone (Fig. 1a, center portion 12 does not comprise roughened surface 24). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 13, Weeber teaches wherein the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) has a surface that is optically smooth (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30 has a smooth linear or parabolic shape [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Weeber teaches the transition zone (Fig. 3A, step 31), but fails to teach wherein an entirety of the transition zone has the elevated surface roughness. Zhao teaches an IOL wherein an entirety of the transition zone has the elevated surface roughness. (Fig. 1a, surrounding lens portion 14 comprises roughened surface 24 [0037]). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 15, Weeber teaches the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30), but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness extends to at least a portion of the optical zone. Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24) extends to at least a portion of the optical zone (Fig. 1a, lens surrounding portion 14 comprising roughened surface 24 abuts center lens portion 12). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 16, Weeber teaches wherein the diffractive profile (Fig. 2A, diffractive profile 23) includes a plurality of echelettes (Fig. 2A, echelettes 26), each echelette having an optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) and a transition zone (Fig. 3A, step 31).
Regarding claim 17, Weeber teaches at least one optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) having a plurality of echelettes (Fig. 2A, echelettes 26) but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness has a greater roughness than a surface of at least one optical zone of the plurality of echelettes.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24) has a greater roughness than a surface of at least one optical zone (Fig. 1a, center lens portion 12 does not comprise roughened surface 24). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 18, Weeber teaches wherein at least one of the transition zones (Fig. 3A, step 31) of the plurality of echelettes (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26) lacks an elevated surface roughness (Figs. 3A-B, echelettes 26 are smooth and linear or parabolic [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Weeber teaches wherein at least one of the optical zones (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) of the plurality of echelettes (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26) lacks an elevated surface roughness (Figs. 3A-B, echelettes 26 are smooth and linear or parabolic [0037]), but fails to teach at least one of the optical zones has an elevated surface roughness.
Zhao teaches at least one of the optical zones (Fig. 1a, surrounding lens portion 14) has an elevated surface roughness (Fig. 3A, roughened surface 24). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone and echelettes taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 20, Weeber teaches the optical zones (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) and transition zones (Fig. 3A, step 31) comprising echelettes (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26), but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness of at least the portion of the transition zone extends to one or both of at least a portion of the optical zone or at least a portion of an optical zone.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 3A, roughened surface 24) of at least the portion of the transition zone (Fig. 1a, surrounding lens portion 14) extends to one or both of at least a portion of the optical zone (Fig. 1a, lens surrounding portion 14 comprises roughened surface 24 [0037] which abuts center lens portion 12). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical and transition zones, and echelettes, taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US 20090268155 a1), “Weeber” in view of Zhao et al. (US 20120032363 A1), “Zhao” and further in view of Weeber et al. (US 2019/0004331 A1), “Weeber 331”.
Regarding claim 7, Weeber teaches the optic (Fig. 2B), but fails to teach wherein the elevated surface roughness is formed by a mold that the optic is formed in. Zhao teaches an IOL comprising an elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optic taught by Weeber with the surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens. However, Weeber in view of Zhao fails to teach a mold.
Weeber 331 teaches a mold that the optic is formed in (size or extent of concave transitions are minimized if lens is manufactured by molding [0061]). Weeber 331 discloses that the concave or convex transition influences the performance of the profile and its manufacturability [0061]. 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 and roughened surface taught by Weeber in view of Zhao with the mold taught by Weeber 331 in order to increase the device’s manufacturability.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeber (US 20090268155 a1), “Weeber” in view of Zhao et al. (US 20120032363 A1), “Zhao” and further in view of Cohen (US Pat. No. 5120120 A), “Cohen”.
Regarding claim 8, Weeber fails to teach the limitations of claim 8. Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24) is formed in a process including forming a surface of the optic having the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 7, apparatus 60 utilizes electrical discharge machining to roughen surrounding lens position 14 [0017;0042]), but Weeber in view of Zhao fails to teach polishing at least one area of the surface to reduce the elevated surface roughness of the at least one area.
Cohen teaches a multifocal optical device comprising polishing at least one area of the surface to reduce the elevated surface roughness of the at least one area (Fig. 16, anterior surface is polished to remove a desired amount of lens material (col. 15, lines 5-8)). Cohen discloses that the anterior surface is designed to give a desired transmission profile comprising light absorbing material (col. 14, lines 33-42). 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 elevated surface roughness taught by Weeber in view of Zhao with the polishing step taught by Cohen in order to selectively place absorbing materials to produce desired effects.
Regarding claim 9, Weeber teaches the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) of the at least one echelette (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26), but Weeber in view of Zhao fails to teach the at least one area. Cohen teaches a multifocal optical device comprising the at least one area (Fig. 16, anterior surface). Cohen discloses that the anterior surface is designed to give a desired transmission profile comprising light absorbing material (col. 14, lines 33-42). 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 Weeber in view of Zhao with the area taught by Cohen in order to selectively place absorbing materials to produce desired effects.
Regarding claim 48, Weeber teaches the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) of the at least one echelette (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26) or at least the portion of the optical zone of the adjacent echelette is a continuous elevated surface roughness (this limitation is seen as nonlimiting due to the “or” statement), but fails to teach the elevated surface roughness that extends to one or both of at least the portion of the optical zone.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 3A, roughened surface 24) extends to one or both of at least a portion of the optical zone (Fig. 1a, lens surrounding portion 14 comprises roughened surface 24 [0037] which abuts center lens portion 12). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone, and echelettes, taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 49, Weeber teaches the optical zone (Fig. 3A, primary zone 30) of the at least one echelette (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26) or at least the portion of the optical zone of the adjacent echelette is an intermittent elevated surface roughness (this limitation is seen as nonlimiting due to the “or” statement), but fails to teach the elevated surface roughness that extends to one or both of at least the portion of the optical zone.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness (Fig. 3A, roughened surface 24) extends to one or both of at least a portion of the optical zone (Fig. 1a, lens surrounding portion 14 comprises roughened surface 24 [0037] which abuts center lens portion 12). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 optical zone, and echelettes, taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
Regarding claim 50, Weeber teaches the echelettes (Fig. 3A, echelettes 26) of the diffractive profile (Fig. 2A, diffractive profile 23), but fails to teach the elevated surface roughness extends to all echelettes of the diffractive profile.
Zhao teaches an IOL wherein the elevated surface roughness extends to all echelettes of the diffractive profile (Fig. 2, roughened surface 24 is disposed on anterior and posterior surfaces of the surrounding lens portion [0014]). Zhao discloses that the roughened surface provides a random scattering surface that reduces glare patterns and provides a uniform contrast level [0037]. 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 profile, and echelettes, taught by Weeber with the elevated surface roughness taught by Zhao in order to improve vision outcomes of the lens.
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 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