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
The amendment filed March 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 11 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 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindacher (US 2010/0036489) in view of Holden (US 2015/0316788), further in view of Oyama (US 6,286,956).
Regarding claim 1, Lindacher discloses an optical lens (Figs. 1 and 3, element 1), applied in myopia correction and slowing down a prescription increasing ([0031], “This reduces or removes on-axis hyperopic stimulus, which helps in preventing or slowing the progression of myopia”), wherein the optical lens includes an optical zone (as shown in Fig. 1, element 1 has an optical zone), and the optical zone comprises:
a relax zone (10);
a distance zone surrounding the relax zone ([0032], “distance vision power (e.g., 0 diopters) at a distance of about 1.5 mm from the lens center. The first part 300A remains at distance vision power until about a 2.0 mm radius”); and
a defocus zone (Fig. 3, radius of 2mm to 4mm) surrounding the distance zone and the relax zone (the relax zone of 0mm to 1.5mm and distance zone of 1.5mm to 2.0mm), wherein a diopter of the relax zone reduces along a direction from a center of the optical zone to an edge of the optical zone (as shown in Fig. 3, the diopter from 0mm to 1.5mm decreases as radius increases).
Lindacher does not specifically disclose an enhance zone surrounding the defocus zone.
However Holden, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches an enhance zone (Fig. 7, 203) surrounding the defocus zone (205, as shown in Fig. 7, the enhance zone 203 surrounds the defocus zone 205).
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 optical lens of Lindacher with the enhance zone surrounding the defocus zone as taught by Holden, for the purpose of reducing eye growth and reduce myopia progression ([0081]).
Modified Lindacher does not specifically disclose wherein an absolute value of a diopter variation of the enhance zone is greater than an absolute value of a diopter variation of the defocus zone, wherein the diopter variation is a ratio of the diopter divided by a lens radius.
However Oyama, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein an absolute value of a diopter variation of the enhance zone (Fig. 8, the slope of the curve for the third varying-power zone) is greater than an absolute value of a diopter variation of the defocus zone (Fig. 8, the slope of the curve for the second varying-power zone, as shown in Fig. 8, the absolute value of the slope of the third varying-power zone is greater than the absolute value of the slope of the second varying-power zone), wherein the diopter variation is a ratio of the diopter divided by a lens radius (the slope of the curve in Fig. 8).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden with the wherein an absolute value of a diopter variation of the enhance zone is greater than an absolute value of a diopter variation of the defocus zone, wherein the diopter variation is a ratio of the diopter divided by a lens radius as taught by Oyama, for the purpose of improving visual acuity (Col. 4, lines 1-27).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Lindacher further discloses wherein an add power of the relax zone is in a range from +0.25D to +1.00D (as shown in Fig. 3, at a radius of 0mm, there is an add power of 0.75D).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Lindacher further discloses wherein a diopter of the distance zone is a constant value ([0032], “distance vision power (e.g., 0 diopters) at a distance of about 1.5 mm from the lens center. The first part 300A remains at distance vision power until about a 2.0 mm radius”, examiner interprets this to mean the power is constant at 0).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a diopter of the distance zone increases along a direction from the relax zone to the edge of the optical zone.
However Lindacher, in a separate embodiment, teaches wherein a diopter of the distance zone (Fig. 2, examiner interprets the distance zone to be 1mm to 2.5mm) increases along a direction from the relax zone to the edge of the optical zone (as shown in Fig. 2, the power of the lens increases along a direction away from the relax zone).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein a diopter of the distance zone increases along a direction from the relax zone to the edge of the optical zone as taught by Lindacher, for the purpose of reducing near vision stress and increase depth focus for central vision ([0031]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Lindacher further discloses wherein a diopter of the defocus zone increases along a direction from the distance zone to the edge of the optical zone (as shown in Fig. 3, the diopter increases as the radius increases from 2mm to 4.25mm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a diopter of the enhance zone increases along a direction from an edge between the defocus zone and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone.
However Holden, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a diopter of the enhance zone (Fig. 7, 203) increases along a direction from an edge between the defocus zone (205) and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone (as shown in Fig. 7, from the edge of 205 at a half cord distance of 3.2mm, the power increases to an edge of the lens for 203).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the disclose wherein a diopter of the enhance zone increases along a direction from an edge between the defocus zone and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone as taught by Holden, for the purpose of reducing eye growth and reduce myopia progression ([0081]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Lindacher further discloses wherein the optical lens is a hard contact lens or a soft contact lens ([0002, 0003], “The invention relates to contact lenses” … “A contact lens is a thin lens made of an optically transparent material such as plastic or glass”).
Claims 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindacher (US 2010/0036489) in view of Holden (US 2015/0316788), further in view of Oyama (US 6,286,956) and Menezes (US 2010/0073629).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a diopter of the enhance zone reduces from an edge between the defocus zone and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone.
However Menezes, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a diopter of the enhance zone (Figs. 3-4, zone 3) reduces from an edge between the defocus zone (end of zone 2 at 3.25mm) and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone (3.25mm to 4mm, as shown in Figs. 3-4, the power of zone 3, which examiner interprets to be the enhance zone, falls as the radius increases).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein a diopter of the enhance zone reduces from an edge between the defocus zone and the enhance zone to the edge of the optical zone as taught by Menezes, for the purpose of accommodating users with larger pupils ([0021]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a material of the optical lens includes HEMA hydrogel or silicone hydrogel.
However Menezes, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a material of the optical lens includes HEMA hydrogel or silicone hydrogel ([0022], “hydrogels, silicone-containing hydrogels, and the like”).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein a material of the optical lens includes HEMA hydrogel or silicone hydrogel as taught by Menezes, for the purpose of producing soft contact lenses for users ([0022]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical lens includes a cylinder power and a cylinder axis, and the optical lens is configured to correct astigmatism.
However Menezes, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the optical lens includes a cylinder power and a cylinder axis, and the optical lens is configured to correct astigmatism ([0020], “incorporate cylinder power in order to correct the wearer's astigmatism”).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein the optical lens includes a cylinder power and a cylinder axis, and the optical lens is configured to correct astigmatism as taught by Menezes, for the purpose of correcting astigmatism of the user ([0020]).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindacher (US 2010/0036489) in view of Holden (US 2015/0316788), further in view of Oyama (US 6,286,956) and Lin (US 2018/0373059).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a diopter of the enhance zone is reciprocate in an interval.
However Lin, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein a diopter of the enhance zone is reciprocate in an interval (as shown in Fig. 14, the enhance zone which examiner interprets to be from radius of 1.6mm, the diopter of the enhance zone is reciprocate in an interval).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein a diopter of the enhance zone is reciprocate in an interval as taught by Lin, for the purpose of controlling the amount of the light entering the user’s eye ([0003], [0102]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical lens is an anti-blue light lens.
However Lin, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the optical lens is an anti-blue light lens ([0220], “wherein the optical lens is an anti-blue light lens.”).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama with the wherein the optical lens is an anti-blue light lens as taught by Lin, for the purpose of blocking blue light while having high visible light transmittance ([0220]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindacher (US 2010/0036489) in view of Holden (US 2015/0316788), further in view of Oyama (US 6,286,956), Menezes (US 2010/0073629), and Lin (US 2018/0373059).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lindacher teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical lens is configured to be stored in a lens preservation solution, the lens preservation solution includes a mydriatic agent with low concentration, and the mydriatic agent is configured to relax a ciliary muscle and to slow down a prescription increasing.
However Lin, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical lens, teaches wherein the optical lens is configured to be stored in a lens preservation solution ([0132], “immersing solution 20 can include a cycloplegic agent”), the lens preservation solution includes a mydriatic agent with low concentration ([0221], “The cycloplegic agent, also known as a mydriatic agent”), and the mydriatic agent is configured to relax a ciliary muscle and to slow down a prescription increasing ([0221], “which can control the paralysis and relaxation of the ciliary muscle”).
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 optical lens of Lindacher in view of Holden further in view of Oyama and Menezes with the wherein the optical lens is configured to be stored in a lens preservation solution, the lens preservation solution includes a mydriatic agent with low concentration, and the mydriatic agent is configured to relax a ciliary muscle and to slow down a prescription increasing as taught by Lin, for the purpose of controlling the relaxation of the ciliary muscle and deterring myopia ([0221], [0133]).
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 on (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 29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights