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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March, 3rd, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-35 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 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 16-27, and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Influence of Lenslet Configuration on Short-Term Visual Performance in Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses; herein Li)1.
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a spectacle lens element (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “All spectacle lenses were made of polycarbonate in this study”) to be worn by a wearer and to provide a refractive power based on a prescription of the wearer for correcting an abnormal refraction of a eye of the wearer (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “(1) traditional single-vision lens (SVL) as control, (2) concentric ring configuration with highly aspherical lenslets (HAL) (Figure 1, left), (3) concentric ring configuration with slightly aspherical lenslets (SAL), and (4) honeycomb configuration of spherical lenslets (HC)”), the spectacle lens element comprising:
an optical microstructure having (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “(2) concentric ring configuration with highly aspherical lenslets (HAL) (Figure 1, left)”) an optical function of not focusing an image on a retina of the eye of the wearer to slow down progression of the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The geometry of the aspheric lenslets (1.12 mm in diameter) was calculated to generate a volume of myopic defocus ranging from 1.1 to 1.9 mm (HAL)”),
wherein a modulation transfer function of the spectacle lens element, for peripheral vision (Pg. 5, Modulation transfer function, “performance of honeycomb and concentric ring configurations was performed using MTF and MTFa simulation”, examiner interprets this to correspond to peripheral vision since the honeycomb and concentric ring configurations are located in a periphery of the lens as shown in Fig. 1), is less than or equal to 0.8 over a range of spatial frequency comprised from 3 to 7 cycles per degree (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is less than 0.8 for 3 to7 cycles per degree), when measured through the optical microstructure for a pupil aperture of 4 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, “For lenses of HAL, SAL, and HC, MTFs were computed for three pupil apertures of 4, 6, and 8 mm”).
Li does not specifically disclose measured through the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element.
However, Li teaches on Pg. 3, Modulation Transfer Function section, that the MTF of the lens is measured by evaluating the complex altitude in the pupil plane, through use of Fourier transform, demonstrating that the measurement conditions, which examiner interprets to be the gaze direction, ray direction, and centered distance, to be result effective variables as they confer to the resulting MTF value of the lens. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Li to have measured through the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens Li by measuring the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses further comprising a refractive area configured to provide the refractive power based on the prescription of the wearer for correcting the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “For HAL and SAL, the surface of the lens without lenslets provides distance correction”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the optical microstructure has an additional optical function of providing the refractive power based on the prescription of the wearer for correcting the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets (1.03 mm in diameter) of HC introduce myopic defocus at a plane in front of the retina by a relative positive power (+3.50 D)”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is less than or equal to 0.8 at a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is less than 0.8 for 3 cycles per degree).
Regarding claim 20, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 19 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function is less than or equal to 0.7 (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF function is less than 0.7 for the spatial frequency).
Regarding claim 21, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is less than or equal to 0.7 at a spatial frequency of 4 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is less than 0.7 for 4 cycles per degree).
Regarding claim 22, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 21 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function is less than or equal to 0.55 (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF function is less than 0.55 for the spatial frequency).
Regarding claim 23, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is less than or equal to 0.4 at a spatial frequency of 7 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element.
However Li, in a separate embodiment, teaches wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is less than or equal to 0.4 at a spatial frequency of 7 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, For HC 4mm, the MTF function is less than 0.55 for the spatial frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Li with the wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is less than or equal to 0.4 at a spatial frequency of 7 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element as taught by Li, for the purpose of introducing myopic defocus (Apparatus, Pg. 2).
Regarding claim 24, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 22 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the modulation transfer function is less than or equal to 0.3.
However Li, in a separate embodiment, teaches wherein the modulation transfer function is less than or equal to 0.3 (Fig. 5, For HC 4mm, the MTF function is less than 0.3 for the spatial frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the spectacle lens of Li with the wherein the modulation transfer function is less than or equal to 0.3 as taught by Li, for the purpose of introducing myopic defocus (Apparatus, Pg. 2).
Regarding claim 25, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is greater than or equal to 0.15 over the range of spatial frequency comprised from 10 to 20 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is greater than 0.15 for 10 to 20 cycles per degree).
Regarding claim 26, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function, for peripheral vision, is a horizontal modulation transfer function or a vertical modulation transfer function (as shown in Fig. 5, the MTF is a horizontal/vertical function due to the circular symmetry of the pupil).
Regarding claim 27, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the optical microstructure is disposed on an object-side surface and/or an eye-side surface and/or between the object-side surface and the eye-side surface of the spectacle lens element (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets of two configurations, concentric rings and honeycomb, provide a similar density of lenslets that was approximately 40% of the total surface area of each lens”, examiner interprets this to mean the lenslets are on a surface of the lens).
Regarding claim 29, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the optical microstructure comprises a plurality of optical elements, including micro-lenses (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets of two configurations, concentric rings and honeycomb, provide a similar density of lenslets that was approximately 40% of the total surface area of each lens”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 29 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the plurality of optical elements is positioned in a network, including a grid, a honeycomb, or concentric rings (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets of two configurations, concentric rings and honeycomb, provide a similar density of lenslets that was approximately 40% of the total surface area of each lens”).
Regarding claim 31, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function of the spectacle lens element, for peripheral vision, is measured through a surface of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, “For lenses of HAL, SAL, and HC, MTFs were computed for three pupil apertures of 4, 6, and 8 mm”), and wherein the optical microstructure covers greater than or equal to 20% of the surface (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets of two configurations, concentric rings and honeycomb, provide a similar density of lenslets that was approximately 40% of the total surface area of each lens”).
Regarding claim 32, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 31 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein wherein the optical microstructure covers greater than or equal to 40% of the surface (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “The lenslets of two configurations, concentric rings and honeycomb, provide a similar density of lenslets that was approximately 40% of the total surface area of each lens”).
Regarding claim 33, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function of the spectacle lens element, for foveal vision, is greater than or equal to 0.07 over the range of spatial frequency comprised from 10 to 25 cycles per degree, when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from the optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is greater than 0.07 for 10 to 25 cycles per degree).
Regarding claim 34, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 33 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the modulation transfer function of the spectacle lens element, for foveal vision, is greater than or equal to 0.10 (as shown in Fig. 5, the MTF is greater than 0.1).
Regarding claim 35, Li discloses a computer-implemented method for determining a spectacle lens element (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “All spectacle lenses were made of polycarbonate in this study”) to be worn by a wearer (Pg. 2, Subjects, “This was a cross-over design study”), to provide a refractive power based on a prescription of the wearer for correcting an abnormal refraction of an eye of the wearer and to slow down progression of an abnormal refraction of said eye of the wearer (Pg. 5, Discussion, “clinical testing using three configurations of lenslets (HAL, SAL, and HC) on spectacle lenses that were designed for myopia control”),
the spectacle lens element comprising an optical microstructure having an optical function of not focusing an image on a retina of the eye of the wearer so as to slow down the progression of the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer (Pg. 5, Discussion, “clinical testing using three configurations of lenslets (HAL, SAL, and HC) on spectacle lenses that were designed for myopia control”); and
the method comprising:
providing a prescription of the wearer (Pg. 2, Apparatus, “For HAL and SAL, the surface of the lens without lenslets provides distance correction”),
determining the optical microstructure so that a modulation transfer function of the spectacle lens element, for peripheral vision (Pg. 5, Modulation transfer function, “performance of honeycomb and concentric ring configurations was performed using MTF and MTFa simulation”, examiner interprets this to correspond to peripheral vision since the honeycomb and concentric ring configurations are located in a periphery of the lens as shown in Fig. 1), is less than or equal to 0.8 over a range of spatial frequency comprised from 3 to 7 cycles per degree (Fig. 5, For HAL 4mm, the MTF value is less than 0.8 for 3 to7 cycles per degree), when measured for a pupil aperture of 4 mm centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element (Fig. 5, “For lenses of HAL, SAL, and HC, MTFs were computed for three pupil apertures of 4, 6, and 8 mm”).
Li does not specifically disclose measured through the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element.
However, Li teaches on Pg. 3, Modulation Transfer Function section, that the MTF of the lens is measured by evaluating the complex altitude in the pupil plane, through use of Fourier transform, demonstrating that the measurement conditions, which examiner interprets to be the gaze direction, ray direction, and centered distance, to be result effective variables as they confer to the resulting MTF value of the lens. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Li to have measured through the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens Li by measuring the optical microstructure for a gaze direction of 0°, for a ray direction of 15°, centered at 6.6 mm from an optical center of the spectacle lens element as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Influence of Lenslet Configuration on Short-Term Visual Performance in Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses) in view of Qi (US 2023/0229018).
Regarding claim 28, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 27 rejection but does not specifically disclose further comprising a coating on the object-side surface and/or the eye-side surface of the spectacle lens element.
However Qi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens element, teaches further comprising a coating on the object-side surface and/or the eye-side surface of the spectacle lens element ([0171], “Accordingly, when their faces are coated with the hard coating film and the antireflection film”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the lens element of Li with the further comprising a coating on the object-side surface and/or the eye-side surface of the spectacle lens element as taught by Qi, for the purpose of suppressing the progression of myopia ([0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12 March 2026
1 X. Li et al., “Influence of Lenslet Configuration on Short-Term Visual Performance in Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 15, May 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.667329.