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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/479,122, filed on July 18th, 2019.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 10th, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Rubinstein fails to disclose the limitations of the amended independent claims, specifically how the measurements for determining the imaging properties of an eye are determined directly from the cornea and not the entire eye. However, as disclosed by Rubinstein in [0019] (“topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A, the topography of the posterior corneal surface 108B”), data from the corneal surface is collected and utilized to determine the properties of the eye as additionally disclosed in [0021] (“topography of the anterior corneal surface may be incorporated into the eye model when designing one or more surfaces of a contact lens”). Additionally, the claims as currently amended do not specifically state that only measurement from the cornea can be used and cannot utilize data collected from elsewhere in the eye.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “measurements for the entire eye are not required” Pg. 13 of applicant’s remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14, 16-17, 19-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubinstein (US 2003/0107706).
Regarding claim 1, Rubinstein discloses a computer-implemented method for determining personalized aberration data of at least one eye of a spectacles wearer ([0011], “methods for the design of lenses for spectacles and other such ophthalmic optical elements that correct defocus, astigmatism, and higher order aberrations”), comprising:
providing a measured corneal topography of the at least one eye of the spectacles wearer ([0019], “topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A, the topography of the posterior corneal surface 108B”);
determining, from the measured corneal topography, personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye which describe at least higher-order aberrations of the cornea, HOAC ([0012], “description hereinbelow will be limited to lenses for spectacles”, [0021], “topography of the anterior corneal surface may be incorporated into the eye model when designing one or more surfaces of a contact lens”); and
determining aberrations of the eye which describe at least higher-order aberrations of the eye ([0014], “Eye 100 may suffer from any or a combination of defocus, astigmatism and higher order aberrations. All these aberrations are represented in wavefront 113”), wherein at least the higher-order aberrations of the eye, HOAEye ([abstract], “designing one or more surfaces of an ophthalmic optical element for an eye suffering at least from higher order aberrations”), are determined from the determined higher-order aberrations personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye ([0019], “additional information regarding the real eye is available, it may be incorporated into the eye model. This additional information may include the topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A”) according to HOAEye = HOAC + ΔHOAC,Eye, wherein ΔHOAC,Eye represents a higher-order dispalcement ([claim 2], “computing said eye model from said data and from one or more of the following: a prescription of said eye, topography of at least one of corneal surfaces of said eye”, as disclosed by claim 2, the displacement is zero as the HOAEye is equivalent to HOAC).
Regarding claim 2, Rubinstein further discloses wherein determining the higher-order aberrations of the eye, HOAEye ([claim 1], “designing one or more surfaces of an ophthalmic optical element for an eye suffering at least from higher order aberrations”), according to HOAEye = HOAC + ΔHOAC,Eye comprises using the higher-order displacement, ΔHOAC,Eye = 0 ([claim 2], “computing said eye model from said data and from one or more of the following: a prescription of said eye, topography of at least one of corneal surfaces of said eye”, as disclosed by claim 2, the displacement is zero as the HOAEye is equivalent to HOAC).
Regarding claim 7, Rubinstein further discloses wherein determining the aberrations of the eye comprises determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye, using personalized refraction measurements at the at least one eye ([0023], “The subjective prescription will include subjective measurements of defocus and astigmatism”).
Regarding claim 8, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the determining aberrations of the eye ([0014], “aberrations are represented in wavefront 113”) comprises:
establishing a personalized eye model in which a shape of an anterior corneal surface of a model eye corresponds to the measured corneal topography ([0019], “additional information may include the topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A”), and in which moreover at least:
a cornea-lens distance ([0015], “Measurement data for a refracted wavefront outside a real eye resulting from refraction by the eye of a spherical wavefront emanating from a point on the eye's retina is obtained (step 200). The data may be in the form of analytic functions, numerical values, or any other form”, examiner interprets the data to correspond to the distance between 114 and the cornea 108);
parameters of a lens of the model eye including a lens thickness ([0017], “There are many eye models known in the literature, and the designer of the lens may select one”); and
a lens-retina distance are established using personalized measured values for the eye of the spectacles wearer or using standard values or using the determined lower-order aberrations of the eye ([0014], “create a spherical wavefront 110 emanating from a point 112 on retina 102 and to measure outside eye 100 the refracted wavefront 113 resulting therefrom”, wavefront 110 would provide the distance from lens 114 to retina 102), such that the model eye has the determined lower-order aberrations of the eye ([0014], “information contained in the measurement of wavefront 113 includes information about the defocus, astigmatism and higher order aberrations that eye 100 suffers.”); and
determining an aberration of a wavefront converging at a point on the retina after a refraction at the anterior corneal surface of the model eye and a propagation through the model eye ([0014], “information contained in the measurement of wavefront 113 includes information about the defocus, astigmatism and higher order aberrations that eye 100 suffers.”).
Regarding claim 9, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the establishing the parameters of the lens of the model eye comprises establishing the following parameters:
a shape of an anterior lens surface of the model eye ([0019], “topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A”);
the lens thickness ([0019], “topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A, the topography of the posterior corneal surface 108B”, since the topography is known for the anterior and posterior surfaces, the thickness between surfaces would also be known); and
a shape of a posterior lens surface of the model eye ([0019], “topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A”).
Regarding claim 10, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the lens thickness of the lens-retina distance of the model eye is established using predetermined standard values ([0023], “Wavefront 116 may be modified so that the aberrations calculated from the modified wavefront using standard calculations match the subjective measurements”).
Regarding claim 11, Rubinstein further discloses wherein determining the aberrations of the eye comprises establishing a personalized eye model ([0030], “retinal surface 408 of the eye model is optimized”) including a lens of the model eye having an anterior lens surface (Figs. 1-5, 502) and a posterior lens surface (504), and wherein establishing a shape of the anterior lens surface or the posterior lens surface of the lens of the model eye ([0019], “additional information may include the topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A, the topography of the posterior corneal surface 108B”) takes place using predetermined standard values for the higher-order aberrations of the respective surface ([0017], “There are many eye models known in the literature, and the designer of the lens may select one”).
Regarding claim 14, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the determining the aberrations of the eye comprises determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye ([0014], “ the information contained in the measurement of wavefront 113 includes information about the defocus, astigmatism”), and wherein the lens-retina distance, the lens thickness, the shape of the anterior lens surface, or the shape of the posterior lens surface of the lens of the model eye is established using the determined lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye ([0012], “to use the methods described hereinbelow to design the shape of corneal tissue”).
Regarding claim 16, Rubinstein further discloses a computer-implemented method for calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens for at least one eye of a spectacles wearer ([0011], “methods for the design of lenses for spectacles and other such ophthalmic optical elements that correct defocus, astigmatism, and higher order aberrations”), comprising:
providing personalized aberration data which have been determined by means of a method ([0014], “Wavefront 113 has been refracted by various optical components of eye 100. Eye 100 may suffer from any or a combination of defocus, astigmatism and higher order aberrations”);
determining a reference aberration at an evaluation surface (114) using the provided personalized aberration data of the eye ([0018], “Computer design code then computes the surface 302 that focuses wavefront 116 (measured with respect to reference plane 114) on retinal point 304”);
predetermining a first surface and a second surface for the spectacles lens that is to be calculated or optimized (Fig. 5, elements 502 and 504);
determining the path of a primary ray through at least one visual point (i) of at least one surface of the spectacles lens that is to be calculated or optimized ([0027], “The surfaces of lens 500 that are to be designed are represented by parameters (step 204)”);
evaluating an aberration of a wavefront at the evaluation surface, which wavefront results from spherical wavefront striking the first surface of the spectacles lens, in comparison to the determined reference aberration ([0023], “Wavefront 116 may be modified so that the aberrations calculated from the modified wavefront using standard calculations match the subjective measurements. The eye model may then be constructed so that modified wavefront 116 is focused on a point on the retina”); and
iteratively varying the at least one surface of the spectacles lens, which surface is to be calculated or optimized, until the evaluated aberration corresponds to a predetermined target aberration ([0033], “The optimization process consists of searching for those surfaces that yield the best value for the merit function”).
Regarding claim 17, Rubinstein further discloses wherein the evaluation surface lies on a vertex sphere (as shown in Fig. 1, the evaluation surface is on the vertex sphere).
Regarding claim 19, Rubinstein discloses a device for determining personalized aberration data of at least one eye of a spectacles wearer ([0011], “methods for the design of lenses for spectacles and other such ophthalmic optical elements that correct defocus, astigmatism, and higher order aberrations”), comprising:
a data interface configured to provide a measured corneal topography of the at least one eye of the spectacles wearer ([0018], “Computer design code then computes the surface 302 that focuses wavefront 116 (measured with respect to reference plane 114) on retinal point 304”);
a cornea evaluator configured to determine personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye which describe at least higher-order aberrations of the cornea, HOAC, from the measured corneal topography ([0012], “description hereinbelow will be limited to lenses for spectacles”, [0021], “topography of the anterior corneal surface may be incorporated into the eye model when designing one or more surfaces of a contact lens”); and
a calculator configured to determine aberrations of the eye which describe at least higher-order aberrations of the eye (claim 1, “computing an eye model from data on defocus of said eye, astigmatism of said eye, and said higher order aberrations”),
wherein at least the higher-order aberrations of the eye, HOAEye ([abstract], “designing one or more surfaces of an ophthalmic optical element for an eye suffering at least from higher order aberrations”), are determined from the determined higher-order aberrations personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye ([0019], “additional information regarding the real eye is available, it may be incorporated into the eye model. This additional information may include the topography of the anterior corneal surface 108A”) according to HOAEye = HOAC + ΔHOAC,Eye, wherein ΔHOAC,Eye represents a higher-order dispalcement ([claim 2], “computing said eye model from said data and from one or more of the following: a prescription of said eye, topography of at least one of corneal surfaces of said eye”, as disclosed by claim 2, the displacement is zero as the HOAEye is equivalent to HOAC).
Regarding claim 20, Rubinstein further discloses a device for calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens for at least one eye of a spectacles wearer ([claim 24], “An apparatus for designing one or more surfaces of an ophthalmic optical element for an eye suffering at least from higher order aberrations”), comprising:
a data interface configured to provide personalized aberration data which have been determined by means of a method ([0018], “Computer design code then computes the surface 302 that focuses wavefront 116 (measured with respect to reference plane 114) on retinal point 304”);
a modeler configured to determine a reference aberration at an evaluation surface (114) using the provided personalized aberration data of the eye ([0018], “Computer design code then computes the surface 302 that focuses wavefront 116 (measured with respect to reference plane 114) on retinal point 304”);
a surface model database ([0017], “There are many eye models known in the literature, and the designer of the lens may select one”)configured to predetermine a first surface and a second surface for the spectacles lens to be calculated or optimized (Fig. 5, elements 502 and 504);
a primary ray determiner configured to determine the path of a primary ray through at least one visual point (i) of at least one surface of the spectacles lens, which surface is to be calculated or optimized ([0027], “The surfaces of lens 500 that are to be designed are represented by parameters (step 204)”);
an evaluator configured to evaluate an aberration of a wavefront at the evaluation surface, said wavefront resulting along the primary ray from a spherical wavefront striking the first surface of the spectacles lens, in comparison to the determined reference aberration ([0023], “Wavefront 116 may be modified so that the aberrations calculated from the modified wavefront using standard calculations match the subjective measurements. The eye model may then be constructed so that modified wavefront 116 is focused on a point on the retina”); and
an optimizer configured to iteratively vary the at least one surface of the spectacles lens, which surface is to be calculated or optimized, until the evaluated aberration corresponds to a predetermined target aberration ([0033], “The optimization process consists of searching for those surfaces that yield the best value for the merit function”).
Regarding claim 21, Rubinstein further discloses a spectacles lens which is calculated or optimized by means of a device ([claim 24], “An apparatus for designing one or more surfaces of an ophthalmic optical element”, [claim 25], “The apparatus of claim 24, wherein said ophthalmic optical element is a lens for spectacles.”).
Regarding claim 22, Rubinstein further discloses a non-transitory computer program product which comprises program code that is designed to implement a method for determining personalized aberration data of at least one eye of a spectacles wearer, when loaded and executed on a computer ([0021], “computer design code may compute the surface 403 that focuses wavefront 116 (measured with respect to reference plane 114) on retinal point 404”).
Regarding claim 23, Rubinstein further discloses a method for producing a spectacles lens ([0015], “Methods for designing lenses of spectacles”), comprising:
calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens according to the method for calculation or optimization of a spectacles lens ([0033], “the optimization process consists of searching for those surfaces that yield the best value for the merit function”); and
manufacturing the spectacles lens so calculated or optimized ([claim 6], “A method for designing one or more surfaces of a lens for spectacles”).
Regarding claim 25, Rubinstein further discloses a spectacles lens which has been produced via a method ([claim 18], “A lens for spectacles for an eye suffering at least from higher order aberrations”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5, 13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinstein (US 2003/0107706) in view of Altheimer (US 2015/0002810).
Regarding claim 3, Rubinstein discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, and wherein the determining the aberrations of the eye comprises determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye, according to LOAEye = LOAC + ΔLOAC,Eye, with a lower-order displacement, ΔLOAC,Eye.
However Altheimer, in the field of the same endeavor because both teach a method for optimizing a lens, teaches wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC ([0023], “power of the lens of the eye (eye lens) such that the eye in the eye model exhibits a refraction according to the collected refraction data of the spectacle wearer”), and wherein the determining the aberrations of the eye comprises determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye, according to LOAEye = LOAC + ΔLOAC,Eye, with a lower-order displacement, ΔLOAC,Eye ([0023], “the relative positions (distance) of the retina and the eye lens as well as the eye length or the position of the retina relative to the eye lens and/or relative to the corneal front surface”).
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 method for optimizing a lens of Rubinstein with the wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, and wherein the determining the aberrations of the eye comprises determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye, according to LOAEye = LOAC + ΔLOAC,Eye, with a lower-order displacement, ΔLOAC,Eye as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of improving the optimization method of a spectacle lens ([0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Rubinstein discloses as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, comprises determining a spherical portion of the refraction of the cornea, LOAC,M, and wherein the determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye , comprises determining a spherical portion of the lower-order aberration of the eye, LOAEye,M, according to LOAEye,M = LOAC,M - LOAC,M,Std, with a predetermined standard value LOAC,M,Std.
However Altheimer, in the field of the same endeavor because both teach a method for optimizing a lens, teaches wherein the determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, comprises determining a spherical portion of the refraction of the cornea, LOAC,M ([0023], “collecting individual topographic data of the corneal front surface”, [0014], “refraction of the eye is specified by the refraction of light on the corneal front surface and the refractive power of the eye lens (preferably including the spherical and astigmatic aberrations ”), and wherein the determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye , comprises determining a spherical portion of the lower-order aberration of the eye, LOAEye,M ([0076], “ collecting refraction data for the at least one eye comprises collecting data relating to the spherical power”), according to LOAEye,M = LOAC,M - LOAC,M,Std, with a predetermined standard value LOAC,M,Std ([0023], “In a preferred embodiment, fixed standard values used equally for all eye models are specified for the geometric parameters”).
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 method for optimizing a lens of Rubinstein in view of Altheimer with the wherein the determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, comprises determining a spherical portion of the refraction of the cornea, LOAC,M, and wherein the determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye , comprises determining a spherical portion of the lower-order aberration of the eye, LOAEye,M, according to LOAEye,M = LOAC,M - LOAC,M,Std, with a predetermined standard value LOAC,M,Std as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of improving the optimization method of a spectacle lens ([0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Rubinstein discloses as is set forth in claim 8 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, and wherein the establishing the lens-retina distance or the lens thickness or the shape of the anterior lens surface or of the posterior lens surface of the lens of the model eye, takes place using the determined lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC.
However Altheimer, in the field of the same endeavor because both teach a method for optimizing a lens, teaches wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC ([0023], “power of the lens of the eye (eye lens) such that the eye in the eye model exhibits a refraction according to the collected refraction data of the spectacle wearer”), and wherein the establishing the lens-retina distance or the lens thickness or the shape of the anterior lens surface or of the posterior lens surface of the lens of the model eye, takes place using the determined lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC ([0025], “the thickness of the cornea, the topography of the corneal back surface, or the topography of the individual lens surfaces, as well as to optical parameters, such as the refractive indices of the individual elements in the eye”).
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 method for optimizing a lens of Rubinstein with the wherein the determining the personalized imaging properties of the cornea of the eye comprises determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, and wherein the establishing the lens-retina distance or the lens thickness or the shape of the anterior lens surface or of the posterior lens surface of the lens of the model eye, takes place using the determined lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of improving the optimization method of a spectacle lens ([0012]).
Regarding claim 24, Rubinstein discloses as is set forth in claim 16 rejection above but does not specifically disclose a device for producing a spectacles lens, comprising: a calculator or optimizer configured to calculate or optimize the spectacles lens according to the method for calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens; and a machine configured to machine the spectacles lens according to the result of the calculation or optimization.
However Altheimer, in the field of the same endeavor because both teach a method for optimizing a lens, teaches a device for producing a spectacles lens ([0001], “an apparatus, and a corresponding computer program product for calculating (optimizing) and producing a spectacle lens”), comprising: a calculator or optimizer configured to calculate or optimize the spectacles lens according to the method for calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens ([claim 16], “a calculator or optimizer adapted to calculate or optimize the spectacle lens”); and a machine configured to machine the spectacles lens according to the result of the calculation or optimization ([claim 16], “a machine adapted to finish the spectacle 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 method for optimizing a lens of Rubinstein with the device for producing a spectacles lens, comprising: a calculator or optimizer configured to calculate or optimize the spectacles lens according to the method for calculating or optimizing a spectacles lens; and a machine configured to machine the spectacles lens according to the result of the calculation or optimization as taught by Altheimer, for the purpose of improving the optimization method of a spectacle lens ([0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 12, 15, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, comprises determining astigmatic portions of the refraction of the cornea, LOAC,J0 and LOAC,J45, and wherein the determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye, comprises determining astigmatic portions of the lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye,J0 and LOAEye,J45, according to LOAEye,J0 = LOAC,J0 and LOAEye,J45 = LOAC,J45.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the determining lower-order refraction values of the cornea, LOAC, comprises determining a spherical portion of the refraction of the cornea, LOAC,M, and wherein the determining lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye , comprises determining a spherical portion of the lower-order aberrations of the eye, LOAEye,M, according to LOAEye,M = LOAC,M + ΔLOAC,Eye,M (LOAC,M), with a linear function ΔLOAC,Eye,M (LOAC,M) = ΔLOAC,Eye,M (LOAC,M,Std) + α(LOAC,M - LOAC,M,Std) having a predetermined standard value LOAC,M,Std and a predetermined value α, within a range of 5 < α < 15.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the standard values of the higher-order aberrations of the anterior lens surface or of the posterior lens surface are set to zero.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest a computer-implemented method for determining optimized sphero-cylindrical values for at least one eye of a spectacles wearer, the method comprising: determining subjective sphero-cylindrical refraction values; determining objective sphero-cylindrical refraction values, which comprises: providing personalized aberration data which have been determined by means of a method; determining a reference wavefront at an evaluation surface using the provided personalized aberration data of the eye; predetermining a starting specification for a wavefront to be optimized, which describes objective sphero-cylindrical refraction values to be optimized, at the evaluation surface; determining a difference wavefront from the wavefront to be optimized and the reference wavefront; evaluating the difference wavefront using the predetermined metric; determining the wavefront to be optimized, such that the evaluation of the difference wavefront satisfies predetermined target criteria; and determining the objective sphero-cylindrical refraction values from the determined wavefront to be optimized; and determining the optimized sphero-cylindrical values as a weighted mean value from the determined subjective sphero-cylindrical refraction values and the determined objective sphero-cylindrical refraction values.
Claim 18 is objected to due to dependency upon claim 15.
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 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 29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights