DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 20 July 2023 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification ¶29 (page 22 line 21) states “the binocular design s remarkable.” This appears to be typographic error for “the binocular design [[s]] is remarkable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “[Claim 14] A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer: acquiring information ….” There appears to be missing a transitional phase. Examiner suggests, for example, amending claim 14 to recite “[Claim 14] A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer that causes the computer to: acquiring information ….”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information specifying … (Specification ¶31 “are realized by, for example, a hardware 25 processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a computer program…”)
a calculation unit configured to calculate a computed value … (Specification ¶31 “are realized by, for example, a hardware 25 processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a computer program…”)
a change unit configured to derive a design parameter change amount … (Specification ¶31 “are realized by, for example, a hardware 25 processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a computer program…”)
Each ‘unit’ is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
“[Claim 1] An eyeglass lens design device for designing a pair of aspherical lenses which have different strengths for the left and right lenses, and have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens, the eyeglass lens design device comprising:
… acquire information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses;
… calculate a computed value of a left prism amount and a right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount, which are acquired by the acquisition unit; and
… derive a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount, which is calculated by the calculation unit, and to change a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.
Designing eyeglasses with aspherical lenses and respective focal lengths encompasses mental design processes which can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Acquiring information of a left and right prism amount based on prescription strength encompasses mental processes in the form of observation.
Calculating a left and right prism amount is a nonspecific calculation which encompasses calculations which can be performed mentally in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed value corresponds to mental process steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
an acquisition unit configured to …;
a calculation unit configured to …; and
a change unit configured to ….
The acquisition unit, calculation unit, and change unit are interpreted as invoking §112(f) and corresponding with Specification ¶31 “are realized by, for example, a hardware 25 processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a computer program…” The hardware processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B here.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 2] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1,
wherein the computed value is a difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount, and
the change unit derives a design parameter change amount that reduces the difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount.
Calculating a difference between a left and right prism amount is a calculation capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed difference value corresponds to mental process steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 3] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1,
wherein the change unit changes a derived design parameter on the basis of a limit value of a design parameter.
Deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed value and a limit value corresponds to mental process steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 3 and 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 3 and 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 7-9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 4] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1,
wherein the acquisition unit acquires information specifying a left prism amount at a position 5 mm or more and 50 mm or less from an optical center and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right strength.
Acquiring information of a left and right prism amount based on prescription strength encompasses mental processes in the form of observation. Observing a left prism amount is between 5 mm and 50 mm is capable of being acquired via observation. For example, reading previously recorded measurement results is acquiring this information by observation.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 4 and 7-9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 4 and 7-9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 10-12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 5] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires information specifying a left prism amount at a position 5 nun or more and 50 mm or less in a horizontal direction from an optical center and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right strength.
Acquiring information of a horizontal left and right prism amount based on prescription strength encompasses mental processes in the form of observation. Observing a horizontal left prism amount is between 5 mm and 50 mm is capable of being acquired via observation. For example, reading previously recorded measurement results is acquiring this information by observation.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5 and 10-12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5 and 10-12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 13] An eyeglass lens design method executed by a computer that designs a pair of aspherical lenses that have different strengths for the left and right lenses, and have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens, the method comprising:
acquiring information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses;
calculating a computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount acquired; and
deriving a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount calculated and changing a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.
Designing eyeglasses with aspherical lenses and respective focal lengths encompasses mental design processes which can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Acquiring information of a left and right prism amount based on prescription strength encompasses mental processes in the form of observation.
Calculating a left and right prism amount is a nonspecific calculation which encompasses calculations which can be performed mentally in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed value corresponds to mental process steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
[Claim 14] …
acquiring information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses that have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens;
calculating a computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount acquired; and
deriving a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount calculated and changing a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.
Acquiring information of a left and right prism amount based on prescription strength encompasses mental processes in the form of observation.
Calculating a left and right prism amount is a nonspecific calculation which encompasses calculations which can be performed mentally in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed value corresponds to mental process steps in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer:
The storage medium and program are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B here.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent 11,953,759 B2 Welk, et al. [herein “Welk”].
Claim 1 recites “[Claim 1] An eyeglass lens design device for designing a pair of aspherical lenses which have different strengths for the left and right lenses, and have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “rotational symmetry” and “a progressive refractive lens.”
Welk column 4 lines 33-38 “The calculation or optimization of the lens may include a calculation or optimization of one of the two surfaces of the lens. The other surface (for example the anterior surface) may be a predetermined or predeterminable surface, for example a simple spherical or rotationally symmetrical aspherical surface.” Calculating an optimization of the lens corresponds with designing a pair of lenses.
Welk column 2 lines 30-31 disclose “This applies in particular to progressive lenses.”
Claim 1 recites a plurality of times “unit configured to” which is interpreted as invoking §112(f) and each corresponding with Specification disclosing “a hardware 25 processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a computer program.”
Welk column 9 lines 51-57 disclose “a computer program product, as well as to a storage medium with computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program or the computer program product is designed to implement an exemplary embodiment of the method for calculating or optimizing a lens or a lens pair when loaded and executed on a computer.” A computer corresponds with at least one hardware processor.
Claim 1 further recites “the eyeglass lens design device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Claim 1 further recites “a calculation unit configured to calculate a computed value of a left prism amount and a right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount, which are acquired by the acquisition unit.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Claim 1 further recites “and a change unit configured to derive a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount, which is calculated by the calculation unit, and to change a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.” Welk equation (1) and column 2 lines 37-49 disclose “Equation (1) is based on the application of Prentice's Rule to the refractive power difference in the vertical direction.” Using the Prentice’s Rule to derive the prismatic load corresponds with deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed difference between left and right prism amounts.
Welk column 4 lines 29-32 disclose “The prismatic correction value may accordingly be determined using the vertical prismatic difference. An additional horizontal prism may, for example, serve for at least the partial correction of a convergence insufficiency.” Determining the prismatic correction value based on the prismatic difference corresponds with deriving a design parameter change and changing the right/left aspherical lens based on the derived design parameter change amount. See further Welk figures 21 start and final refraction of left and right lenses.
Claim 2 further recites “[Claim 2] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1, wherein the computed value is a difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between the left and right lens correspond to a difference between the left prism amount and right prism amount.
Claim 2 further recites “and the change unit derives a design parameter change amount that reduces the difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the difference between the left prism amount and the right prism amount.” Welk equation (1) and column 2 lines 37-49 disclose “Equation (1) is based on the application of Prentice's Rule to the refractive power difference in the vertical direction.” Using the Prentice’s Rule to derive the prismatic load corresponds with deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed difference between left and right prism amounts.
Claim 3 further recites “[Claim 3] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1, wherein the change unit changes a derived design parameter on the basis of a limit value of a design parameter.” Welk column 6 lines 62-64 discloses “The prismatic correction value may also be limited to a maximum allowable value in order to achieve a balance between the refractive power error and/or astigmatic error.” The limit to a maximum allowable value corresponds with a limit value. Limiting the prismatic correction value corresponds with deriving the design parameter on the basis of the limit value of the design parameter.
Claim 4 further recites “[Claim 4] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires information specifying a left prism amount at a position 5 mm or more and 50 mm or less from an optical center and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right strength.” Welk column 29 lines 46-54 disclose “Prentice’s rule … and cy is the decentration or the distance between the near reference point and the prism reference point.” The decentration corresponds with a distance from an optical center and the prism amount, but the decentration amount is not specifically identified in Welk column 29.
Welk column 14 lines 45-54 disclose:
The far reference point of the shown lenses is located at +4 mm (=centering point), the near reference point is located at -14 mm, and the prism reference point is located at 0 mm. The eye may be arranged in an average usage position or in a personalized usage position. For example, the usage position may be characterized by the corneal vertex distance, pantoscopic tilt, eye pivot distance, pupil distance, object distance model, and/or other parameters. An average usage position is indicated in DIN 58 208 Part 2, for example.
The pupil distance corresponds with one optical center, the pupil. The reference points being 4 mm and 14 mm respectively are distances approaching and within the range of 5 mm and 50 mm respectively. See MPEP §2144.05 regarding similar and overlapping ranges.
Claim 5 further recites “[Claim 5] The eyeglass lens design device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires information specifying a left prism amount at a position 5 mm or more and 50 mm or less in a horizontal direction from an optical center and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right strength.” Welk column 12 lines 39-41 disclose “the difference of the horizontal prismatic effect at the first reference point and the horizontal prismatic effect at the near reference point deviates by at least 0.5 cm/m from a value … the refractive power in the horizontal direction of the first reference point; and … the refractive power in the horizontal direction at the near reference point.” The horizontal prismatic effect corresponds to specifying a left prism amount in a horizontal direction.
Welk column 29 lines 46-54 disclose “Prentice’s rule … and cy is the decentration or the distance between the near reference point and the prism reference point.” The decentration corresponds with a distance from an optical center and the prism amount, but the decentration amount is not specifically identified in Welk column 29.
Welk column 14 lines 45-54 disclose:
The far reference point of the shown lenses is located at +4 mm (=centering point), the near reference point is located at -14 mm, and the prism reference point is located at 0 mm. The eye may be arranged in an average usage position or in a personalized usage position. For example, the usage position may be characterized by the corneal vertex distance, pantoscopic tilt, eye pivot distance, pupil distance, object distance model, and/or other parameters. An average usage position is indicated in DIN 58 208 Part 2, for example.
The pupil distance corresponds with one optical center, the pupil. The reference points being 4 mm and 14 mm respectively are distances approaching and within the range of 5 mm and 50 mm respectively. See MPEP §2144.05 regarding similar and overlapping ranges.
Dependent claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 3 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 7-9 are substantially similar to claim 4 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claims 10-12 are substantially similar to claim 5 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites “[Claim 13] An eyeglass lens design method executed by a computer that designs a pair of aspherical lenses that have different strengths for the left and right lenses, and have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “rotational symmetry” and “a progressive refractive lens.”
Welk column 4 lines 33-38 “The calculation or optimization of the lens may include a calculation or optimization of one of the two surfaces of the lens. The other surface (for example the anterior surface) may be a predetermined or predeterminable surface, for example a simple spherical or rotationally symmetrical aspherical surface.” Calculating an optimization of the lens corresponds with designing a pair of lenses.
Welk column 2 lines 30-31 disclose “This applies in particular to progressive lenses.”
Claim 13 further recites “the method comprising: acquiring information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Claim 13 further recites “calculating a computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount acquired.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Claim 13 further recites “and deriving a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount calculated and changing a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.” Welk equation (1) and column 2 lines 37-49 disclose “Equation (1) is based on the application of Prentice's Rule to the refractive power difference in the vertical direction.” Using the Prentice’s Rule to derive the prismatic load corresponds with deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed difference between left and right prism amounts.
Welk column 4 lines 29-32 disclose “The prismatic correction value may accordingly be determined using the vertical prismatic difference. An additional horizontal prism may, for example, serve for at least the partial correction of a convergence insufficiency.” Determining the prismatic correction value based on the prismatic difference corresponds with deriving a design parameter change and changing the right/left aspherical lens based on the derived design parameter change amount. See further Welk figures 21 start and final refraction of left and right lenses.
Claim 14 recites “[Claim 14] A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer:.” Welk column 9 lines 51-57 disclose “a computer program product, as well as to a storage medium with computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program or the computer program product is designed to implement an exemplary embodiment of the method for calculating or optimizing a lens or a lens pair when loaded and executed on a computer.”
Claim 14 further recites “acquiring information specifying a left prism amount corresponding to a left-eye strength and information specifying a right prism amount corresponding to a right-eye strength on the basis of a relationship between a prescription strength and a prism amount.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values indicates the prism values were acquired to determine the respective difference.
Claim 14 further recites “of each of a plurality of aspherical lenses that have rotational symmetry or axial symmetry around a component of a fixed focal length lens for a distance prescription comprising a fixed focal length lens or a progressive refractive lens.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “rotational symmetry” and “a progressive refractive lens.”
Welk column 4 lines 33-38 “The calculation or optimization of the lens may include a calculation or optimization of one of the two surfaces of the lens. The other surface (for example the anterior surface) may be a predetermined or predeterminable surface, for example a simple spherical or rotationally symmetrical aspherical surface.” Calculating an optimization of the lens corresponds with designing a pair of lenses.
Welk column 2 lines 30-31 disclose “This applies in particular to progressive lenses.”
Claim 14 further recites “calculating a computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount on the basis of the information specifying the left prism amount and the information specifying the right prism amount acquired.” Welk column 2 lines 46-47 disclose “
∆
S
R
L
'
is the vertical refractive power difference between the left lens and the right lens, in dpt.” The difference between left and right refractive power corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Furthermore, Welk figure 21 shows a starting and final “prism difference.” A difference between prism values corresponds with a computed value based on the individual acquired left/right prism values.
Claim 14 further recites “and deriving a design parameter change amount of a right-eye aspherical lens and/or a left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the computed value of the left prism amount and the right prism amount calculated and changing a design parameter of the right-eye aspherical lens and/or the left-eye aspherical lens on the basis of the derived design parameter change amount.” Welk equation (1) and column 2 lines 37-49 disclose “Equation (1) is based on the application of Prentice's Rule to the refractive power difference in the vertical direction.” Using the Prentice’s Rule to derive the prismatic load corresponds with deriving a design parameter change amount based on the computed difference between left and right prism amounts.
Welk column 4 lines 29-32 disclose “The prismatic correction value may accordingly be determined using the vertical prismatic difference. An additional horizontal prism may, for example, serve for at least the partial correction of a convergence insufficiency.” Determining the prismatic correction value based on the prismatic difference corresponds with deriving a design parameter change and changing the right/left aspherical lens based on the derived design parameter change amount. See further Welk figures 21 start and final refraction of left and right lenses.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160004096 A1 KOZU; Kazuma
teaches
MANUFACTURING APPARATUS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SPECTACLE LENS
US 8182087 B2 Esser; Gregor et al.
Pair of spectacle lenses for anisometropia
US 11391966 B2 Hatanaka; Takashi et al.
Eyeglass lens, method for designing eyeglass lens, and method for manufacturing eyeglass lens
Wikipedia “Prism Correction” (12 Jan. 2021) available at < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prism_correction&oldid=999968713>
Technology background of prism correction
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 31 August 2026
Prosecution Insights