DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant's election with traverse of (see below) in the reply filed on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged.
SAG FUNCTION of a STANDARD aspheric profile - Species A (embodied in Figure 2)
SAG FUNCTION of an EVEN-ORDER aspheric profile - Species A (embodied in Figure 3)
COMBINATION FUNCTION - Species A (embodied in Figure 4)
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SAG FUNCTION OF THE LENS PROFILE VERSUS THE SAG FUNCTION OF THE STANDARD ASPHERIC PROFILE - Species A (embodied in Figure 5)
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant submits that independent claim 1 recites subject matter that is new and inventive, and that is generic and reads on all of the elected Species, and that all remaining claims depending from independent claim 1 read on the elected Species such that the claims pending in this patent application are properly linked to each other thereby forming a single general inventive concept”.
This is not found persuasive, in view of the 112 2nd paragraph and 102(a)(1) rejections below. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 are 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.
a. Regarding independent claim 1 (and dependent claim 15), the recitation “a lens surface with a lens profile being representable by a combination of a standard aspheric profile and an even-order aspheric profile” is vague and unclear, rendering claim 1 indefinite as to the scope of the invention.
(i) The term “representable” is not positively claiming the lens profile as represented by the combination of the two profiles. In other words, the term “representable” lacks clarity since the lens profile of claim 1 is not necessarily represented by the combination of the two profiles, rendering claim 1 indefinite as to the scope of the invention.
(ii) None of the “a standard aspheric profile and an even-order aspheric profile” are defined in the claim language of independent claim 1.
The expression “standard” aspheric profile is not per se limiting, as e.g. an equation with S₁ + S₂ (of current claim 5 and claim 8) might be regarded as a standard aspheric profile, or even an equation with an unlimited number of A₂ₙ r²ⁿ components. Such wide - and non-limiting - definition of asphere are very common in patent applications on the field of IOLs and contact lenses. Both “standard” aspheric and even-order aspheric profiles can generate any imaginable curve with a symmetry with respect to the center of the lens provided the number of aspheric coefficients is large enough. Therefore, none of the claims - each considered on its own and with its current dependencies - can be regarded as limiting with respect to the resulting product claimed.
Taken literally, the lens of claim 1 is the combination of sag functions S₁ and S₂ with no change in the influence of those functions as defined in claim 12. However, claim 1 does not include all these features, but rather refers to undefined functions S₁, S₂ combined with an undefined other function S(r) (claim 10). As long as all three functions are not defined, it is possible to choose arbitrarily one or more functions resulting in exactly the curve of Fig 4 or Fig 19, those other functions which have a greater effect near or far from the vertex.
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Canovas Vidal et al. (US PG Pub No. 2018/0325658 A1).
Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses an ophthalmic lens (IOL – see Abstract) comprising a lens surface (102, or 104) with a lens profile being representable by a combination of:
a standard aspheric profile (Fig 4, (406), the curve aspheric fit for far vision correction, best seen from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, trying to mimic the lens power providing monofocal vision, which implicitly requires some aspherical coefficients to compensate for the spherical aberration of the cornea, and visibly provides an aspheric profile; [0052], [0053], Table 21, radius of curvature R = -30, i.e. curvature of -0.033, conic constant k = -42) and
an even-order aspheric profile (Fig 4, (406), the curve aspheric fit for near vision correction, best seen for a radius between 0 and 0.5 mm and for a smooth change between near and far correction; [0052], [0053], Table 21, a₄ = 0.05, a₆ = -0.05, a₈ = 0.01, a₁₀ = 0, a₁₂ = 0),
wherein the aspheric profiles are combined such that, in a region immediately surrounding the vertex of the lens surface, the lens profile converges to a sum of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile with decreasing radial distance to the vertex and, in an outer region surrounding the vertex, the lens profile converges to the standard aspheric profile with increasing radial distance to the vertex (Fig 4, the curve (406) fits the standard curve as best as possible for lens radius above 1 mm).
Regarding claim 2, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile is representable by a smooth function of the radial position (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile is representable by a function of the radial position, which has a first-order derivative of zero at the vertex of the lens surface (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile is representable by a function of the radial position, which changes the sign of the second-order derivative with increasing radial position (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses the sag function of the “standard” aspheric profile S₁ (typical asphere). Since the other two functions S₂ & M(r) are not defined in claim 5, each of the power distributions of Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0052], [0053]) can be arbitrarily written as the sag function S₁ combined with other - arbitrarily chosen - functions S₂ & M(r).
Regarding claim 6, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the curvature c at the vertex of the lens surface is a) larger than or equal to 0.005 mm-1 and b) smaller than or equal to 0.25 mm-1 ([0077], r = 29, c = 0.033). Notice, since the other equations - in particular S₂ - are not defined, it is possible to choose an arbitrary function S₂ so that the abstract function S₁ fulfills claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the conic constant k is a) larger than or equal to -800 and b) smaller than or equal to 5 ([0106] k = -42). Notice, many conic values will be in that range, in particular k = 0 or k almost 0.
Regarding claim 8, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses even-order aspheric with coefficients (possibly with a value of zero) for r², r⁴, r⁶, r⁸ ([0052], Table 21, a₄ = 0.05, a₆ = -0.05, a₈ = 0.01, a₁₀ = 0, a₁₂ = 0; not limiting because S₁ is not defined in claim 8). It is noted here that the coefficient of r² has a direct influence similar to that of C - the curvature, and that the combined effect of r²- r⁸ can partially compensate the effect of the conic. Thus, even when considering an hypothetical claim combining all the features of claims 5-8, the scope of possible curves would still be very large due to the combined effect of r² with C and r²⁻⁸ with k.
Regarding claim 9, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile is definable by a combination function which depends on the radial distance to the vertex such that the contribution of the standard aspheric profile and the contribution of the even-order aspheric profile to the lens profile at a certain radial distance to the vertex depends on the radial distance (see 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 1, above, and 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 10, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein a sag function of the lens profile is defined by S(r)= M(r)S1(r) + (1 - M(r))(Si(r) + S2(r)), formalizing/ clarifying the feature of claim 1 that for R ~ 0 the first asphere is dominant and R ~ rmax the second asphere is dominant; since claim 10 does not require the limitation of claims 5 & 8.
Regarding claim 11, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination function is a smooth function (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses the recited combination function with tanh, which is not limiting as long as S₁ and S₂ are not defined in an unambiguously limiting way as in claims 5, 8, as well as the range of the aspheric coefficients of specification of the instant application (further, see 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 1, above, and 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 13, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the constant A is larger than 2.0 mm-1 and smaller than 10.0 mm-1, and the constant p is larger than 0.3 mm and smaller than 2.5 mm, which is not limiting as long as S₁ and S₂ are not defined in an unambiguously limiting way as in claims 5, 8, as well as the range of the aspheric coefficients of specification of the instant application (further, see 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 1, above, and 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 14, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the ophthalmic lens is an intraocular lens (see, at least, Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses a manufacturing method ([0156]-[0161]) for manufacturing an ophthalmic lens as defined by claim 1, wherein the manufacturing method comprises forming a lens profile of a lens surface of the ophthalmic lens such that it is representable by a combination of a standard aspheric profile and an even-order aspheric profile, wherein the aspheric profiles are combined such that, in a region immediately surrounding the vertex of the lens surface, the lens profile converges to a sum of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile with decreasing radial distance to the vertex and, in an outer region surrounding the vertex, the lens profile converges to the standard aspheric profile with increasing radial distance to the vertex (see 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claim 1, above, and 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 16, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination of the standard aspheric profile and the even-order aspheric profile is representable by a function of the radial position, which has a first-order derivative of zero at the vertex of the lens surface (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the conic constant k is a) larger than or equal to -800 and b) smaller than or equal to 5 ([0106] k = -42). Notice, many conic values will be in that range, in particular k = 0 or k almost 0.
Regarding claim 18, Canovas Vidal et al. ‘658 discloses wherein the combination function is a smooth function (Figure 4).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US PG Pub No. 2006/0244904 A1
US PG Pub No. 2017/0245983 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Javier G. Blanco whose telephone number is (571)272-4747. The examiner can normally be reached on M- F (10am-7:30pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Jerrah C. Edwards, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAVIER G BLANCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774