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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, applicant claims eye model data based on data relative to the wearer, “for example based on wearer age and/or wearer eye prescription.” The language of the applicant’s claim is unclear. The use of “for example…” appears to desire an additional limitation, but since these are only given as examples, there is no such requirement. Therefore, it is not clear if the applicant wishes wearer age and/or prescription to be a requirement or not.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim such that any data used that may be “relative” to a wearer satisfies the requirements of the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 16-23 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian et al. (Proceedings Volume 10815, Optical Design and Testing VIII; 108150A (2018), of record) and Becken et al. (PGPUB 20200326560).
Regarding claim 16, Bian discloses a method, implemented by computer, for determining the adaptation of a myopia control optical lens to a wearer, the myopia control optical lens being configured to provide simultaneously to the wearer a refractive optical function based on a prescription for said wearer and a myopia control function to reduce, delay or prevent myopia progression of the wearer, the method comprises:
(S2) providing an eye model corresponding to an eye of the wearer (Sect. 1 myopic model derived from experimental data), said eye model comprising at least geometrical data relative to at least one structure of the eye model (Sect. 2 provides examples of eye models and geometric values), and at least one optical axis passing through the eye model rotation center (Sect. 2.2),
(S4) providing a visual environment comprising at least a source object point (M) and at least one object point (S) (Sect. 1, Zemax ray tracing),
(S6) providing a myopia control optical lens model (Sect. 2.3 where the contact lens is provided),
(S8) providing a reference frame and positioning the eye model, the myopia control optical lens model and the visual environment in the reference frame (Sect. 2.3);
(S10) determining at least one central vision quality criteria for at least one object point (M) of the visual environment seen by the eye model through the myopia control optical lens model (Sects. 3 and 4 where the design is implemented and analyzed),
(S12) determining at least one myopia control efficiency criteria for at least one object point (S) of the visual environment seen by the eye through the myopia control optical lens model (Sect. 3 at least the radius),
(S14) determining the adaptation of the myopia control optical lens to the wearer based on the at least one central vision quality criteria and the at least one myopia control efficiency criteria (Sect. 4).
Bian does not specifically disclose wherein the eye model comprises a center of rotation of the eye model (ERC).
However, Becken teaches a similar method of optimizing a corrective lens using an eye model ([0066]) wherein the model includes the center of rotation of the eye ([0119]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Bian and Becken such that the center of rotation was included in the eye model motivated by improving simulation accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bian discloses wherein the at least one structure of the eye model relates to an eye's cornea, and/or an eye's crystalline lens, and/or an eye's pupil, and/or an eye's retina surface (Table 1 of Bian).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bian discloses wherein the eye model is provided based on data relative to the wearer, for example based on the wearer age and/or the wearer eye prescription (Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Bian discloses wherein the visual environment is associated with a visual ergorama (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bian discloses wherein the visual environment is associated with a discrete set of points located within a visual field of the eye model greater than or equal to 20° and at different distances from the eye model rotation center (ERC) (Fig. 3 and further note that “associated with” is broad language and would include any kind of association).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bian discloses wherein the at least one central vision quality criteria is based on at least one of: Strehl ratio, and/or a Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), and/or power error, and/or astigmatism error, and/or fraction of encircled energy radius, and/or, spot diagram radius, and/or a point spread function (PSF), and/or an optical transfer function (OTF), and/or visual Strehl ratio (VSX, VSOTF, VSMTF), and/or wavefront aberrations (Fig. 2 at least MTF).
Regarding claim 22, modified Bian discloses wherein determining the central vision quality criteria further comprises:
(S 102) determining at least one central gaze direction (αM;βM) associated with the source object point (M)([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159]);
(S104) rotating the eye model around the eye model rotation center (ERC) so that the eye model optical axis coincides with the central gaze direction (αM; βM) )([0119]-[0121] of Becken),
(S106) modifying at least one parameter of the eye model ([0068] of Becken),
(S108) calculating a central vision quality criteria based on the relative position of the source object point (M) to the eye model rotation center (ERC) within the reference frame, the myopia control optical lens model, and the modified eye model (see at least Sects. 3-4 of Bian where central vision, 0 degrees, is calculated),
(S110) optimizing the central vision quality criteria by repeating the steps (5106) of modifying at least one parameter of the eye model and (S108) of calculating a central vision quality criteria (see [0068] where Becken teaches iteratively optimizing criteria of the model).
Regarding claim 23, modified Bian discloses wherein (S 12) determining the myopia control efficiency criteria further comprises:
(S1202) determining, for a central gaze direction (αM; βM) of the eye model associated with the source point object (M), at least one peripheral light ray (P) associated with the at least one object point (S) and passing through the myopia control optical lens model and the eye model's pupil at a direction (αS; βS) ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian),
(S1204) evaluating, for the at least one object source point (S) associated to the at least one peripheral light ray (P), the location of the astigmatic foci from light passing through the myopia control optical lens model and the eye model ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian),
(S1206) evaluating a peripheral defocus based on the evaluated distances between the astigmatic foci for the at least one peripheral light ray (P) and the intersection of the peripheral light ray (P) and the eye model's retina ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian).
Regarding claim 25, modified Bian discloses wherein (S 12) determining the myopia control efficiency criteria further comprises:
(S1232) determining, for a central gaze direction (αM; βM) of the eye model associated with the source point object (M), at least one peripheral light ray P associated with the at least one object point (S) and passing through the myopia control optical lens model and the eye model's pupil at a direction (αS; βS) ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian), and
(S1234) determining a metric Q assessing an image quality of the object point (S) through the myopia control optical lens model and the eye model on the eye model's retina ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian).
Regarding claim 26, modified Bian discloses wherein (S 12) determining the myopia control efficiency criteria further comprises:
(S1236) modifying at least one eye model parameter (Sect. 2.1),
(S1238) repeating the steps (S1234) of determining the metric Q and (S1336) of modifying the at least one eye model parameter (see [0068] where Becken teaches iteratively optimizing criteria of the model and see Sects. 2.1 and 2.3 of Bian where the model is optimized),
(S1240) determining the at least one eye model parameter for which the metric Q is optimal (see [0068] where Becken teaches iteratively optimizing criteria of the model nd see Sects. 2.1 and 2.3 of Bian).
Regarding claim 27, modified Bian discloses determining the myopia control criteria further comprises: (S 1246) evaluating the metric Q as a function of at least one eye model parameter ([0119] of Becken), (S1448) determining the slope of the metric Q expressed as a function of the at least one eye model parameter ([0119] of Becken where the derivative of metrics are calculated).
Regarding claim 28, modified Bian discloses wherein the metric Q assessing the image quality for peripheral vision is based on at least one of:
Preliminary Amendment Strehl ratio, anda Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), and/or power error, and/or astigmatism error, and/or fraction of encircled energy radius, and/or, spot diagram radius, and/or a point spread function (PSF), and/or an optical transfer function (OTF), and/or visual Strehl ratio (VSX, VSOTF, VSMTF), and/or wavefront aberrations (Fig. 2 at least MTF and [0119]-[0121] of Becken).
Regarding claim 29, modified Bian discloses wherein the at least one myopia control efficiency criteria is evaluated for a set of object points (Sk) located in the visual environment and according to a set of gaze directions (Gi) (Figs. 2-3 of Bian).
Regarding claim 30, modified Bian discloses a method for comparing at least two myopia control optical lenses for a wearer and selecting the most adapted, the method comprising determining the adaptation of each myopia control optical lens for the wearer by a method according to claim 16, comparing the adaptation of each myopia control optical lens to the wearer and selecting the most adapted myopia control optical lens (the process of optimization is inherently a comparative process where a particular lens having one or more particular variables is compared to a lens having at least one differing variable – [0010] and [0068]of Becken teaches an iterative optimization method that includes the comparison of particular functions related to the eye as well as Sects. 1 and all of 2 of Bian).
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bian in view of Becken and further in view of Robinson et al. (PGPUB 20200033632).
Regarding claim 24, modified Bian discloses wherein (S 12) determining the myopia control efficiency criteria further comprises:
(S1212) determining, for a central gaze direction (αM; βM) of the eye model associated with the source point object (M), at least one peripheral light ray (P) associated with the at least one object point (S) and passing through the myopia control optical lens model and the eye model's pupil at a direction (αS; βS) ([0119]-[0121] of Becken and also see the method of providing another eye model starting at [0159] and Sects. 1 and 2.3 of Bian),
(S1214) adding a thin sphero-torical lens model in front of the myopia control optical lens model such that an optical axis of said thin sphero-torical lens model coincides with the at least one peripheral light ray (P) when the peripheral light ray propagates in the visual environment,
(S1216) optimizing a surface of the thin sphero-torical lens model so that light of the at least one peripheral light ray P focuses on the eye model's retina,
(S1218) determining the mean optical power of the optimized thin sphero-torical lens model, and
(S1220) evaluating a peripheral defocus based on the mean optical power of the thin sphero-torical lens model (Sect. 1 of Bian).
Modified Bian does not specifically incorporating a thin sphero-torical into the lens model and that model coincides with at least one peripheral ray.
However, Robinson teaches an eyewear simulation that includes incorporating toric lenses (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Bian and Robinson such that a toric lens was incorporated into the eye simulation model motivated by improving corrected vision for a wearer having astigmatism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872