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 January 9th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that To (US 2017/0131567) does not disclose a plurality of spaced-apart light scattering centers since they refract and focus light rather than scattering light or reducing contrast. However, as the current claim’s limitations states, “a plurality of spaced-apart light scattering centers”, broadly interpreted, is interpreted by the examiner to mean that the centers prevent light from converging at the same point as light passing through the overall ophthalmic lens. As shown in Figs. 5-6, the centers 2 prevent light from converging at the retina and causes the light to redirect in different directions.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejections.
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, 3, 5-7, 10, 14-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To (US 2017/0131567).
Regarding claim 1, To discloses an ophthalmic lens (Figs. 1-10, element 1) comprising a region comprising a plurality of spaced-apart light scattering centers (2, [0053], “plurality of island-shaped second refraction areas 2 are formed in a way to be included in a circular area”, due to the shape and form of the second refraction areas as shown in Figs. 4 and 9, they will inherently scatter light) having a maximum dimension ([0052], “a circular shape having a diameter d of about 0.8 to 2.0 mm”) and being spaced apart ([0052], “separated from each other by a distance almost equal to a value of a radius d/2”), and for incident light transmitted by the ophthalmic lens (1), the ophthalmic lens scatters light incident on the light scattering centers ([0053], “plurality of island-shaped second refraction areas 2 are formed in a way to be included in a circular area”, due to the shape and form of the second refraction areas as shown in Figs. 4 and 9, they will inherently scatter light, further as shown in Fig. 6, the light scatters at elements 2).
To does not specifically disclose the dimension in a range from 0.01 mm to 1 mm and being spaced apart by 0.8 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimension in a range from 0.01 mm to 1 mm and being spaced apart by 0.8 mm or less, 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 dimension in a range from 0.01 mm to 1 mm and being spaced apart by 0.8 mm or less is an art recognized results effective variable in that the size of the ophthalmic lens is a result effective variable as taught by To.
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 lens of To by making the dimension in a range from 0.01 mm to 1 mm and being spaced apart by 0.8 mm or less 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.
Regarding claim 3, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein a spacing between neighboring scattering centers (Fig. 2, r) of the plurality of scattering centers is uniform across a surface of the ophthalmic lens ([0052], “The plurality of island-shaped second refraction areas 2 are approximately evenly arranged”).
Regarding claim 5, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers are arranged on a grid (as shown in Fig. 2, the scattering centers 2 are arranged on a grid).
Regarding claim 6, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers comprise protuberances on the curved surface ([0051], “the object side surface of each second refraction area 2 is formed into a convex spherical surface shape toward the object side”).
Regarding claim 7, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers comprise depressions on the curved surface ([0054], “the second refraction areas 2 in an approximately plano-convex shape inward from surfaces of the second refraction areas 2 in a thickness direction”).
Regarding claim 10, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers have a circular shape ([0053], “second refraction areas 2 are formed in a way to be included in a circular area”).
Regarding claim 14, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the region surrounds a clear area free of the plurality of scattering centers (as shown in Figs. 1-2, there is a clear area in the center O), wherein the plurality of scattering centers (2) are configured to reduce a contrast of an image viewed through the region as compared to the image viewed through the clear area (light passing through second refraction areas 2 will inherently lose some contrast compared to the clear aperture O of the lens due to the curvature of elements 2).
Regarding claim 15, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 14 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the clear area is located at a center of the curved surface (as shown in Figs. 1-2, O is in the center of the lens).
Regarding claim 16, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 14 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the clear area is a circular area (as shown in Figs. 1-2, the clear aperture O is circular in shape).
Regarding claim 17, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 14 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the clear area has a maximum dimension of 1.5 cm or less ([0053], “circular areas having a radius 2.5 to 10.0 mm with the optical center O of the spectacle lens as the center”).
Regarding claim 18, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers occupy at least 10% of the area of the region ([0053], “a ratio of total area of the second refraction areas, with respect to the total areas of the second refraction areas and the first refraction area, is 20 to 60% in an area”).
Regarding claim 19, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 18 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers occupy 60% or less of the area of the region ([0053], “a ratio of total area of the second refraction areas, with respect to the total areas of the second refraction areas and the first refraction area, is 20 to 60% in an area”).
Regarding claim 20, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the plurality of scattering centers (2) are at a surface of the ophthalmic lens (as shown in Figs. 3-4, elements 2 are formed on a surface), and the plurality of scattering centers comprise at least one scattering center selected from the group consisting of: a protrusion, a depression, and a recess ([0051], “each second refraction area 2 is formed into a convex spherical surface shape”).
Regarding claim 22, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses wherein the ophthalmic lens is an eyeglass lens or a contact lens ([0007], “Aspects of the disclosure include a spectacle lens”).
Regarding claim 23, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses eyeglasses comprising the ophthalmic lens ([0007], “Aspects of the disclosure include a spectacle lens”).
Regarding claim 24, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and To further discloses a method comprising: refracting a human subject to determine a lens prescription for correcting the human subject's visual acuity ([0009], “a first refraction area having a first refractive power based on a prescription for correcting an abnormal refraction of an eye”); and
providing the subject with the eyeglasses ([0007], “Aspects of the disclosure include a spectacle lens”), wherein the ophthalmic lens has an optical power corresponding to the lens prescription ([0009], “a first refraction area having a first refractive power based on a prescription for correcting an abnormal refraction of an eye”).
Claims 2, 4, and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To (US 2017/0131567) in view of Silvestrini (US 2006/0118263).
Regarding claim 2, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a spacing between neighboring scattering centers of the plurality of scattering centers varies across a surface of the ophthalmic lens.
However Silvestrini, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein a spacing between neighboring scattering centers of the plurality of scattering centers (Figs. 60-62, 3020) varies across a surface of the ophthalmic lens (as shown in Figs. 62B-62C, the spacing varies between scattering centers).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein a spacing between neighboring scattering centers of the plurality of scattering centers varies across a surface of the ophthalmic lens as taught by Silvestrini, for the purpose of improving depth of focus of an eye ([0094]).
Regarding claim 4, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of scattering centers are arranged in a random or semi-random pattern.
However Silvestrini, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the plurality of scattering centers (Figs. 60-62, 3020) are arranged in a random or semi-random pattern (as shown in Figs. 62B-62C, the scattering centers are arranged in a random pattern).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the plurality of scattering centers are arranged in a random or semi-random pattern as taught by Silvestrini, for the purpose of improving depth of focus of an eye ([0094]).
Regarding claim 11, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of scattering centers have an elongate shape.
However Silvestrini, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the plurality of scattering centers (Fig. 63B, elements 4020b) have an elongate shape (as shown in Fig. 63B, the scattering centers 4020b have an elongate shape, [0268], “most or all the facets 4062b have an elongate shape”).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the plurality of scattering centers have an elongate shape as taught by Silvestrini, for the purpose of improving depth of focus of an eye ([0094]).
Regarding claim 12, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 11 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of scattering centers have an elliptical shape.
However Silvestrini, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the plurality of scattering centers (Fig. 63B, elements 4020b) have an elliptical shape (as shown in Fig. 63B, the scattering centers 4020b have an elongate shape, [0268], “most or all the facets 4062b have an elongate shape”).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the plurality of scattering centers have an elliptical shape as taught by Silvestrini, for the purpose of improving depth of focus of an eye ([0094]).
Regarding claim 13, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of scattering centers have a random shape.
However Silvestrini, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the plurality of scattering centers (Fig. 63A, 4020a) have a random shape ([0267], “A substantial number of the holes 4020a have a non-uniform size”).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the plurality of scattering centers have a random shape as taught by Silvestrini, for the purpose of improving depth of focus of an eye ([0094]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To (US 2017/0131567) in view of Krause (US 2019/0072786).
Regarding claim 8, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of polycarbonate.
However Krause, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of polycarbonate ([0056], “In particular, the base material can be one or more of the materials mentioned above in the introductory part of the description, namely in particular … polycarbonate”).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of polycarbonate as taught by Krause, for the purpose of producing an improved spectacle lens ([0043]).
Regarding claim 9, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of a material having an index of refraction greater than 1.60.
However Krause, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of a material having an index of refraction greater than 1.60 ([0056], “a spectacle lens and have a refractive index of … even more particularly a refractive index of more than 1.6”).
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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the ophthalmic lens is composed of a material having an index of refraction greater than 1.60 as taught by Krause, for the purpose of producing an improved spectacle lens ([0043]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To (US 2017/0131567) in view of Niculas (US 2004/0150787).
Regarding claim 21, modified To teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the scattering centers are embedded in a bulk material composing the ophthalmic lens.
However Niculas, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein the scattering centers (Figs. 1-2, 16) are embedded in a bulk material composing the ophthalmic lens ([0016], “one light-reflective particle 16 encapsulated within the body of the 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 ophthalmic lens of To with the wherein the scattering centers are embedded in a bulk material composing the ophthalmic lens as taught by Niculas, for the purpose of improving a cosmetic effect of the lens ([0007]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 7 May 2026
Prosecution Insights