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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14th, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed December 16th, 2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (CN 110687689 B, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Sankaridurg (US 2022/0350169).
Regarding claim 1, Daun discloses a spectacle lens ([0017], “a microlens peripheral defocus spectacle lens”), comprising:
a base region (Figs. 1-10, element 1) where a light flux incident from an object-side surface is emitted from an eyeball-side surface and converges on a retina through an eyeball ([0020], “eyeglass lens is provided with a central correction area”);
a plurality of defocus regions (element 7 in regions 2 and 3, [0017] “asymmetric hyperopic defocus of the nasal and temporal retinal periphery of a myopic eye”) in contact with the base region and having a property that the light flux passing through at least a part of the defocus region is incident on a retina as a divergent light ([0020], “The nasal microlens area and the temporal microlens area are each provided with two gradient microlens areas with different refractive powers and a full-quantity microlens area”); and
a first defocus region arrangement portion (regions 2 and 3) in which the plurality of defocus regions are arranged in such a manner that a 4 mm diameter circle including at least a portion of one defocus region exists in a planar view of the object-side surface ([0074], “diameter length of the millimeter level is set to 0.8mm to 2.0mm”, examiner interprets this to mean that for a 4mm circular region, there would be only a single defocus region of diameter 2mm that would be fully inside the 4mm circular region as any other regions would be only partially in the circular region).
Daun does not specifically disclose the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed.
However Sankaridurg, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches the circle (Fig. 39, examiner interprets the circle to be a 4mm circle centered around a light modulating cell) including at least a portion of one defocus region (the dark dots in Fig. 39 are the modulating cells) but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region (as shown in Fig. 39, for a modulating cell with a diameter of 0.8mm as disclosed in [0172], “light modulating cells have a diameter of about 0.8 mm”, for a 4mm circle centered around the modulating cell, there is only one modulating cell and no adjacent cells); wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens (as shown in Fig. 39, the defocus region is in a periphery of the lens), and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed (as shown in Fig. 39, the center is clear of any light modulating cells).
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 spectacle lens of Duan with the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed as taught by Sankaridurg, for the purpose of slowing or stopping eye growth ([0006]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Duan further discloses wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, when a region at a center position of the 4 mm diameter circle including only one defocus region is defined as region Z1 in a planar view of the object-side surface, an area of the region Z1 is 25% or more of an area of the first defocus region arrangement portion ([0074], “diameter length of the millimeter level is set to 0.8mm to 2.0mm … distance between two adjacent microlenses is 0.1mm to 0.2mm”, for a circle of diameter 2.0mm and with adjacent circles being 0.1mm away, the area of Z1 is more than 25%, given that the circle of 2.0mm diameter alone is 25% area coverage of a 4mm diameter circle).
Regarding claim 5, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Daun further discloses wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the diameter d of the defocus region is 1.5 mm or more and 3 mm or less ([0074], “diameter length of the millimeter level is set to 0.8mm to 2.0mm”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Daun further discloses wherein the spectacle lens is a myopia progression suppressing lens ([0017], “spectacle lens for correcting the myopic defocus of the central retina of a myopic eye and the asymmetric hyperopic defocus of the nasal and temporal retinal periphery of a myopic eye”).
Regarding claim 8, Daun discloses a method for designing a spectacle lens ([0083], “the spectacle lens surface is designed”) including a base region (Figs. 1-10, element 1) where a light flux incident from an object-side surface is emitted from an eyeball-side surface and converges on a retina through an eyeball ([0020], “eyeglass lens is provided with a central correction area”); and a plurality of defocus regions (7, [0017] “asymmetric hyperopic defocus of the nasal and temporal retinal periphery of a myopic eye”) in contact with the base region and having a property that the light flux passing through at least a part of the defocus region is incident on a retina as a divergent light ([0020], “The nasal microlens area and the temporal microlens area are each provided with two gradient microlens areas with different refractive powers and a full-quantity microlens area”), the method comprising:
arranging the plurality of defocus regions in such a manner that a 4 mm diameter circle including at least a portion of one defocus region exists in a planar view of the object-side surface ([0074], “diameter length of the millimeter level is set to 0.8mm to 2.0mm”, examiner interprets this to mean that for a 4mm circular region, there would be only a single defocus region of diameter 2mm that would be fully inside the 4mm circular region as any other regions would be only partially in the circular region).
Daun does not specifically disclose the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed.
However Sankaridurg, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches the circle (Fig. 39, examiner interprets the circle to be a 4mm circle centered around a light modulating cell) including at least a portion of one defocus region (the dark dots in Fig. 39 are the modulating cells) but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region (as shown in Fig. 39, for a modulating cell with a diameter of 0.8mm as disclosed in [0172], “light modulating cells have a diameter of about 0.8 mm”, for a 4mm circle centered around the modulating cell, there is only one modulating cell and no adjacent cells); wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens (as shown in Fig. 39, the defocus region is in a periphery of the lens), and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed (as shown in Fig. 39, the center is clear of any light modulating cells).
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 spectacle lens of Duan with the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed as taught by Sankaridurg, for the purpose of slowing or stopping eye growth ([0006]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above and Daun further discloses wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the diameter d of the defocus region is 1.5 mm or more and 3 mm or less ([0074], “diameter length of the millimeter level is set to 0.8mm to 2.0mm”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above and Daun further discloses wherein the spectacle lens is a myopia progression suppressing lens ([0017], “spectacle lens for correcting the myopic defocus of the central retina of a myopic eye and the asymmetric hyperopic defocus of the nasal and temporal retinal periphery of a myopic eye”).
Regarding claim 21, modified Daun teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the periphery of the spectacle lens is a circumference of 10 mm in diameter from the center of the lens and a region outside thereof in the planar view of the object-side surface of the spectacle lens.
However Sankaridurg, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches wherein the periphery (examiner interprets the periphery to be the dark gray region of Fig. 39, element 2d) of the spectacle lens is a circumference of 10 mm in diameter from the center of the lens and a region outside thereof in the planar view of the object-side surface of the spectacle lens (as shown in Fig. 39, the region of 10mm in diameter and outwards is the peripheral zone containing the light modulating cells).
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 spectacle lens of Wang in view of Sankaridurg with the wherein the periphery of the spectacle lens is a circumference of 10 mm in diameter from the center of the lens and a region outside thereof in the planar view of the object-side surface of the spectacle lens as taught by Sankaridurg, for the purpose of slowing or stopping eye growth ([0006]).
Claims 1, 4, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN210514836U, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Sankaridurg (US 2022/0350169).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a spectacle lens ([0006], “Frame glasses”), comprising:
a base region ([0011], “A reinforced multifocal polyurethane lens”) where a light flux incident from an object-side surface is emitted from an eyeball-side surface and converges on a retina through an eyeball ([0020], “The diopter on the surface is based on the diopter of the prescription used to correct the refractive error of vision”);
a plurality of defocus regions ([0020], “multiple independent raised domes distributed on the surface”) in contact with the base region and having a property that the light flux passing through at least a part of the defocus region is incident on a retina as a divergent light ([0020], “The diopters of the raised domes have a light addition of +0.25-+1.00D than the flat diopters.”); and
a first defocus region arrangement portion in which the plurality of defocus regions are arranged in such a manner that a 4 mm diameter circle including at least a portion of one defocus region exists in a planar view of the object-side surface ([0024], “The diameter of each raised top circle is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm, the height is 0.10 um to 3.0 um, and the distance between two adjacent raised top circles is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm.”, for a diameter of 1.5mm and distance between circles of 1.5mm, there would only be one raised circle in a circular region of 4mm).
Daun does not specifically disclose the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed.
However Sankaridurg, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a spectacle lens, teaches the circle (Fig. 39, examiner interprets the circle to be a 4mm circle centered around a light modulating cell) including at least a portion of one defocus region (the dark dots in Fig. 39 are the modulating cells) but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region (as shown in Fig. 39, for a modulating cell with a diameter of 0.8mm as disclosed in [0172], “light modulating cells have a diameter of about 0.8 mm”, for a 4mm circle centered around the modulating cell, there is only one modulating cell and no adjacent cells); wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens (as shown in Fig. 39, the defocus region is in a periphery of the lens), and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed (as shown in Fig. 39, the center is clear of any light modulating cells).
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 spectacle lens of Wang with the circle including at least a portion of one defocus region but not including any portion of an adjacent defocus region; wherein the first defocus region arrangement portion is provided on a periphery of the spectacle lens, and the first defocus region arrangement portion surrounds a center portion of the spectacle lens where the defocus region is not formed as taught by Sankaridurg, for the purpose of slowing or stopping eye growth ([0006]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Wang further discloses wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, a center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions ([0024], “The diameter of each raised top circle is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm, the height is 0.10 um to 3.0 um, and the distance between two adjacent raised top circles is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm.”, for a diameter of 1.5mm and spacing of 1.5mm, the center to center distance is 3mm) and a diameter d of the defocus region ([0024], “The diameter of each raised top circle is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm, the height is 0.10 um to 3.0 um, and the distance between two adjacent raised top circles is 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm.”, for a diameter of 1.5mm) satisfy (d+4 mm)/2<a<d+4 mm (the calculated values are thus 2.75<3<5.5).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wang teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above and Wang further discloses wherein the spectacle lens is a myopia progression suppressing lens ([0007], “a reinforced multifocal polyurethane lens … making it more effective in delaying the progression of myopia in adolescents.”)
Claims 6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN210514836U, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Sankaridurg (US 2022/0350169), further in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0197058).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm.
However Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm ([0093], “the spots 3 in the first embodiment are dome-shaped convex lenses with a diameter of 2 mm … the spots 3 are arranged at intervals of 2 mm”, this would therefore calculate to being a center to center distance of 4mm).
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 spectacle lens of Wang in view of Sankaridurg with the wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of providing better vision through myopia refractive correction ([0027]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the diameter d of the defocus region is 1.5 mm or more and 3 mm or less.
However Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the diameter d (Figs. 2-3, element 3, [0093], “the spots 3 in the first embodiment are dome-shaped convex lenses with a diameter”) of the defocus region is 1.5 mm or more and 3 mm or less [0093], “the spots 3 in the first embodiment are dome-shaped convex lenses with a diameter of 2 mm”).
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 spectacle lens of Wang in view of Sankaridurg with the wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the diameter d of the defocus region is 1.5 mm or more and 3 mm or less as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of providing better vision through myopia refractive correction ([0027]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm.
However Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm ([0093], “the spots 3 in the first embodiment are dome-shaped convex lenses with a diameter of 2 mm … the spots 3 are arranged at intervals of 2 mm”, this would therefore calculate to being a center to center distance of 4mm).
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 spectacle lens of Wang in view of Sankaridurg with the wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of providing better vision through myopia refractive correction ([0027]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (CN 110687689 B, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Sankaridurg (US 2022/0350169), further in view of Suzuki (US 2022/0197058).
Regarding claim 16, modified Duan teaches as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm.
However Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a lens, teaches wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm ([0093], “the spots 3 in the first embodiment are dome-shaped convex lenses with a diameter of 2 mm … the spots 3 are arranged at intervals of 2 mm”, this would therefore calculate to being a center to center distance of 4mm).
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 spectacle lens of Duan in view of Sankaridurg with the wherein in the first defocus region arrangement portion, the center-to-center distance a between the adjacent defocus regions is more than 3 mm and less than 7 mm as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of providing better vision through myopia refractive correction ([0027]).
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 19 February 2026