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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 2/9/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 14-18, 23, 25, 30-35, 71, cancelled claims 2, 6, 11, 13, 19-22, 24, 27, 29, 140 and added claim 209.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/021,711 filed on 2/16/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the term “comprises” in line 2 was inadvertently deleted. It is suggested that said term is reinstated in the claim for better clarity.
Regarding claim 16, said claim recites “each annular concentric optical zone are spaced” in lines 1-4. It is suggested that said feature is replaced by “each annular concentric optical zone is spaced” for better clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 32, said claim recites “about” a certain value in line 8. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, it will be taken that “about X” refers to “X”.
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, 10, 12, 14-18, 23, 25-26, 28, 30, 33-35, 71, 209 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenan et al. (US 2019/0227342, hereinafter, “Brenan”) in view of Holden et al. (US 2015/0316788, hereinafter, “Holden”).
Regarding claim 1, Brenan discloses an ophthalmic lens 500 configured to correct or treat at least one condition of the eye (Fig. 5A, 5B, [0083]) comprising:
a central optical zone 506 having a first power profile (Fig. 5A, 8A, [0083], [0098]);
a peripheral optical zone 508 (Fig. 5A, [0083]);
a base power profile to correct distance refractive error of the eye (Fig. 8A, [0083], [0098]); and
a plurality of annular concentric optical zones in the peripheral optical zone selected to modify the base power profile and to form one or more off-axis focal points 948, 949 in front of, on, or behind a retinal image plane and reduce a focal point energy level at one or more image planes (Fig. 9D, [0083], [0087]-[0090], [0098], [0104]). Here, because the focal points are away (i.e., in front) of the retinal image plane, the energy level at the retinal image plane is reduced);
wherein the plurality of annular concentric optical zones are located on a front surface or a back surface of at least one of the central optical zone and the peripheral optical zone (Fig. 5B).
Brenan does not disclose wherein the first power profile of the central optical zone is different to the base power profile; and
each annular concentric optical zone comprises a cyclical power profile incorporating a "m" component that is relatively more negative in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens and a "p" component that is relatively more positive in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens.
Holden discloses an ophthalmic lens comprising a central zone 511 and a peripheral zone 510 (Fig. 11, [0062]-[0063]). In Holden, the central zone has a first power profile 502 and a base power profile 504 (Fig. 11), where the first power profile is different than the base profile. Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) principle, the peripheral zone 510 comprises a cyclical power profile incorporating a component 607 more negative than the base power profile (e.g., the peak of 504) and a component 516 more positive than the base power profile (e.g., the peak of 504), see Fig. 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brenan so that the optical zone of the central zone has two different power profiles and the power profile of the peripheral zone has the claimed peaks relative to the base profile, as taught by Holden, for correcting the refractive error of the eye by changing the base profile of the central zone according to desired requirements.
Regarding claim 10, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
each annular concentric optical zone comprises a line curvature (Fig. 5B in Brenan, the treatment zone 508 comprises a line curvature).
Regarding claim 12, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1 comprising annular concentric optical zones (Fig. 5A in Brenan).
Brenan/Holden doers not disclose each of the zones is between 20-2000 μm wide.
However, Brenan/Holden discloses diameters of the central zone 506, and the treatment zone 508 ([0083] in Brenan).
The parameter of the width of the annular zones is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the power profile, which effects the optical performance, see Fig. 8A in Brenan.
Brenan/Holden discloses the claimed invention except for the range for the width of the annular zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brenan/Holden so that the width of the annular zone lies within the claimed range, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the width of the annular zone is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it effects the optical performance of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the width of the annular zone because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 14, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
a net resultant power profile of the plurality of annular concentric optical zones of the peripheral optical zone is at least one of relatively more positive in power than the first power profile, relatively more negative in power than the first power profile, or the same power as the first power profile (Fig. 11 in Holden).
Regarding claim 15, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
each annular concentric optical zone is with an adjacent annular concentric optical zone (Fig. 5B in Brenan).
Regarding claim 16, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
each annular concentric optical zone is spaced apart from one another so as to create an alternating pattern where the base power profile alternates with each annular concentric optical zone (Fig. 15B in Brenan).
Regarding claim 17, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of annular concentric optical zones are configured so that the innermost and outermost portions of at least one of the annular concentric optical zones is geometrically normal to the front surface (Fig. 5B in Brenan) or the back surface and provides a lateral separation of the off-axis focal points formed by the annular concentric optical zones from the optical axis (Fig. 9C, [0083] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 18, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the light energy image quality formed by the plurality annular concentric optical zones is substantially similar or dissimilar (Fig. 5B, the annular zones form a focal ring which means the energy created at the focal points from the annular zones is similar, [0030] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 23, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
an interference from light rays created by the plurality of annular concentric optical zones increases or decreases from an anterior most image plane from the retina to a posterior most image plane or decreases from the retinal image plane or another image plane to at least one of the anterior most image plane and at least one of the posterior most image plane (Fig. 10A, 10B in Brenan, the interference of rays from the annular zones increases from the anterior most image plane from retina to the posterior most).
Regarding claim 25, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
any combination of one or more of the number of annular concentric optical zones or width or sagittal power profile and/or tangential power profile and/or boundary power profile or m:p ratio or P-to-V value or surface curvature or lateral separation or spacing or surface location of the annular concentric optical zones are used to provide a condition to extend depth of focus, to reduce focal point energy levels, to reduce/minimize light interference on in-focus images by out-of-focus images or to reduce, mitigate, or prevent one or more night vision disturbances (the width, separation, curvature of the optical zones is used to reduce myopia, Fig. 8A, 8B, [0098], [0099], [0143] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 26, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the ophthalmic lens provides, at least in part, an extended depth of focus within the useable vergence ranges encountered by a user of the ophthalmic lens (Fig. 9C, 9D, focal points are extended in front of retina, [0103], [0104] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 28, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the ophthalmic lens is configured to provide a low light energy formed on the retina (Fig. 9D in Brenan, the one on-axis focal point 944 formed on the retina has a low light energy due to the existence of additional ring focal points 948, 949. The light energy transmitted through the annular zones is distributed to a plurality of spots).
Regarding claim 30, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the ophthalmic lens has a uniform light ray intensity distribution across a retinal spot diagram (Fig. 9D, [0104] in Brenan, a single focal point 944 is formed at the retina).
Regarding claim 33, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1.
Brenan/Holden does not disclose wherein the central optical zone has a half-chord diameter of 5 mm, 4 mm, 3 mm, 2 mm, 1.75 mm, 1.5 mm, 1.25 mm, 1.0 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.1 mm or less.
However, Brenan/Holden discloses that the diameter of the central zone 506 may be 4 mm ([0083] in Brenan).
The parameter of the width of the central zone is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the power profile, which effects the optical performance, see Fig. 8A in Brenan.
Brenan/Holden discloses the claimed invention except for the range for the width of the central zone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brenan/Holden so that the width of the central zone lies within the claimed range, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the width of the central zone is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it effects the optical performance of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the width of the central zone because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 34, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of annular concentric zones are configured to reduce, mitigate or prevent one or more night vision disturbances ([0082] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 35, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein
the ophthalmic lens is one of a contact lens, an intraocular lens, and/or a spectacle lens ([0001] in Brenan).
Regarding claim 71, Brenan/Holden discloses an ophthalmic lens 500 comprising:
a front surface (Fig. 5B, [0083] in Brenan);
a back surface (Fig. 5B, [0083] in Brenan);
a base power profile to correct distance refractive error of the eye (Fig. 8A, [0083], [0098]);
a central optical zone 506 having a first power profile (Fig. 5A, 8A, [0083], [0098] in Brenan);
an annular peripheral optical zone 508 surrounding the central optical zone 506 (Fig. 5B, [0083] in Brenan); and
an optical design 508 formed on at least one of the front surface or the back surface of the ophthalmic lens (Fig. 5B, [0083] in Brenan);
wherein the optical design comprises a first power profile, different to the base power profile, in the central optical zone that forms at least one focal point along an optical axis (Fig. 9A, [0101] in Brenan, Fig. 11, [0062]-[0063]) in Holden, the central zone has a first power profile 502 and a base power profile 504 (Fig. 11), where the first power profile is different than the base profile); and
wherein the optical design comprises a second power profile in the annular peripheral optical zone comprising at least one or more annular conjoined optical zones that have a cyclical power profile incorporating a "m" component that is relatively more negative in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens and a "p" component that is relatively more positive in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens and form one or more off-axis focal points (under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) principle, the peripheral zone 510 comprises a cyclical power profile incorporating a component 607 more negative than the base power profile (e.g., the peak of 504) and a component 516 more positive than the base power profile (e.g., the peak of 504), see Fig. 11 in Holden).
Regarding claim 209, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1,
wherein a power range between an absolute power of the "m" component and an absolute power of the "p" component of the cyclical power profile are constant in at least one direction across at least two or more of the plurality of annular concentric optical zones (Fig. 11 in Holden discloses the power across the optic zone vs the half-cord distance from the center of the optic zone, [0062], implying that a difference between p and m peaks is the same across multiple zones along a particular direction from the center of the optical zone).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenan/Holden in view of Bakaraju et al. (US 2014/0104563, hereinafter, “Bakaraju”).
Regarding claim 5, Brenan/Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1.
Brenan/Holden does not disclose the ophthalmic lens provides a through focus retinal image quality (RIQ) with one or more independent peaks and wherein there is at least one or more independent peaks.
Bakaraju discloses an ophthalmic lens for treating a refractive error (Abstract). In one embodiment, Bakaraju discloses that a through focus retinal image quality (RIQ) is evaluated using the visual Strehl ratio (as in the present application), [0200]], which may comprise one peak (Fig. 27, [0258]).
Both Brenan and Bakaraju disclose ophthalmic optical lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brenan/Holden so that the RIQ comprises at least one peak, as taught by Bakaraju, for achieving a desired correction of the refractive error.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenan, Holden in view of Weeber (US 2021/0286196, hereinafter, “Weeber”).
Regarding claim 9, Brenan, Holden discloses the ophthalmic lens of claim 1.
Brenan/Holden does not disclose the frequency of the cyclical power profile is 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20, 50 or 100 cycles/mm.
Weeber discloses an ophthalmic lens 20 configured to correct or treat at least one condition of the eye (Fig. 2A, 2B, [0055]) comprising: a central optical zone round optic axis 24 (Fig. 2A, [0067]); a peripheral optical zone 23 (Fig. 2A, [0068]). In one embodiment, Weeber discloses several cycles per mm in the cyclical power profile (Fig. 8 in Weeber).
The parameter of the frequency of the cyclical profile is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the power profile, which effects the optical performance, see Fig. 8A in Brenan.
Brenan/Holden discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the frequency of the cyclical power profile.
Both Brenan and Weeber disclose ophthalmic optical lenses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brenan/Holden so that the frequency of the cyclical power profile lies within the claimed range, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the frequency of the cyclical profile is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it effects the optical performance of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the frequency of the cyclical power profile because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 31, 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with a focus retinal image quality (RIQ) with the claimed maximum value within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with a RIQ with the claimed area of one or more of the independent peaks.
Regarding claim 7, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with the peak-to-valley power range between the absolute powers of the “m” and “p” component of the cyclical power profile in the sagittal direction being in the claimed region.
Regarding claim 8, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with the peak-to-valley power range between the absolute powers of the “m” and “p” component of the cyclical power profile in the tangential direction being in the claimed region.
Regarding claim 31, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with the claimed distribution of the total enclosed energy that results at the retinal image plane at the retinal spot diagram.
Regarding claim 32, Brenan is silent as to disclosing an ophthalmic lens with the particular characteristics of the average slope of the total enclosed energy that results at the retinal image plane.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 (similarly for claim 71), Applicant stated “applicant submits that none of the cited sections of Brennan or Griffin teach or suggest the features of "each annular concentric optical zone comprises a cyclical power profile incorporating a "m" component that is relatively more negative in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens and a "p" component that is relatively more positive in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens." Griffin merely describes a cyclic power distribution 70, from the maximum power ADDM, with a near vision region 72 having constant near vision power in the radial direction. A mirror image 74 of the cyclic power distribution 70 is used at the outer boundary of the near vision region 72 to the apical distance power (paragraph [0058] of Griffin). At best, Brennan describes at least one treatment zone of an ophthalmic lens having a power profile comprising a positive power relative to a center zone (see, for example, paragraphs [0001], [0030]-[0031] of Brennan). Accordingly, Applicant submits that neither Brennan nor Griffin disclose or teach that a treatment zone or any other features provide a cyclical power profile "having one or more cycles incorporating a "m" component that is relatively more negative in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens and a "p" component that is relatively more positive in power than the base power profile or the first power profile of the ophthalmic lens," as recited in amended claim 1”, see pages 1-2 of the remarks.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made based on Brennan in view of Holden.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 (and its dependents) and independent claim 71 is maintained.
New claim 209 depends from claim 1 and is rejected.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872