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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2025, 08/13/2025 and 01/29/2024 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
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, 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guillot et al. (EP 3640712A of record).
Regarding claim 1, Guillot discloses a method (claim 1) for determining a lens element intended to be mounted on a spectacle frame and to be worn in front of an eye of a wearer, the lens element comprising:
a refraction area (6) having a refractive power based on prescribed refractive power Px for said eye of the wearer, the refraction area comprising at least a central zone (fig. 1),
a plurality of optical elements (8) having an optical function of not focusing an image on the retina of the eye of the wearer (§ 0034), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining frame data representing the spectacle frame on which the lens element is intended to be mounted (implicit from § 0084);
obtaining wearer's data representing at least one parameter of the face of the wearer (implicit from § 0084);
determining fitting data (wearing conditions, § 0084) representing the spectacles positioned on the face of the wearer based on the frame data and the wearer's data; and
optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements based on the fitting data (the optical elements are calculated for the wearing condition).
Regarding claim 4, Guillot discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a lens-eye distance between a back surface of the lens element and the eye of the wearer based on the fitting data, wherein the at least one optical parameter of the optical elements is optimized based on the lens-eye distance (In particular, the size of the central region is calculated so that, in the wearing conditions, it corresponds to a given angle of vision (the foveal region). This requires to take into account the lens-eye distance in the calculation).
Regarding claim 9, Guillot discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements further comprises determining a disposition of the optical elements on the lens element and a size of the central zone (In particular, the size of the central region is calculated so that, in the wearing conditions, it corresponds to a given angle of vision (the foveal region). This requires to take into account the lens-eye distance in the calculation).
Regarding claim 10, Guillot discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the frame data further comprises at least one of quotation A, and/or quotation B, and/or dimension of the bridge, and/or contour of the frame (The frame data obviously includes dimensions of a frame corresponding to a given category).
Regarding claim 11, Guillot discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the frame data relates to a selected predefined category of frame (The frame data obviously includes dimensions of a frame corresponding to a given category).
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (CN110689A of record).
Regarding claim 12, Duan discloses (abstract) a lens element intended to be mounted on a spectacle frame and to be worn in front of an eye of a wearer, the lens element comprising:
- a refraction area (1) having a refractive power based on a prescribed refractive power Px for said eye of the wearer and comprising at least the central zone (abstract),
- a plurality of optical elements (fig. 1) having an optical function of not focusing an image on the retina of the eye of the wearer (defocus), wherein the optical elements are arranged based at least on the prescribed refractive power Px and the shape of the spectacle frame (no limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Duan discloses the lens element according to claim 12, wherein at least one of: a density of optical elements, an optical power of the optical elements, a size of the optical elements, or a prismatic angle of the optical elements, is greater in a nasal side than in a temporal side of the lens element (the microlenses have a higher optical power in the nasal side than in the temporal side (par.[0073]) and are mounted in a spectacle frame par.[0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Duan discloses an eyewear equipment comprising: a spectacle frame; and at least one lens element according to claim 12, wherein the at least one lens element is mounted on the spectacle frame (the microlenses have a higher optical power in the nasal side than in the temporal side (par.[0073]) and are mounted in a spectacle frame par.[0059]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillot et al. (EP 3640712A of record) as applied to claim 1, in view of Trumm et al.(US 2022/0365367 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Guillot et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements. Guillot does not explicitly discloses determining a first density of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element, the first density being different from the density of the optical elements in the opposite second part of the lens element. Trumm et al. teaches determining a first density of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element (par.[0360]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Trumm to device of Guillot for purpose of optimizing parameters of the optical elements.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillot et al. (EP 3640712A of record), as applied to claim 1, in view of Weiss et al.(US 2023/0288730 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Guillot et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements. Guillot does not explicitly disclose determining a first optical power of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element, the first optical power being different from the optical power of the optical elements in a second opposite part of the lens element. Weiss et al. teaches determining a first optical power of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element, the first optical power being different from the optical power of the optical elements in a second opposite part of the lens element (par.[0037]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Weiss to device of Guillot for purpose of optimizing parameters of the optical elements since the arrangement of optical elements on both the temporal and the nasal regions is optimized using the position and size of the lens in the spectacle frame, related to optimizing the density, the optical power, the size and prismatic angle of the optical elements.
8. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillot et al. (EP 3640712A of record), as applied to claim 1.
Guillot discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements, but does not disclose determining a first size of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element, the first size being different from the size of the optical elements in a second opposite part of the lens element; determining a first prismatic angle of the optical elements in a first part of the lens element, the first prismatic angle being different from the prismatic angle of the optical elements in a second opposite part of the lens element; determining a disposition of the optical elements on the lens element and a size of the central zone. However, it would be obvious to skilled person in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the arrangement of optical elements on both the temporal and the nasal regions is optimized using the position and size of the lens in the spectacle frame, related to optimizing the density, the optical power, the size and prismatic angle of the optical elements.
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN110689A of record), as applied to claim 12, in view of Neitz et al.(US 10,571,717-B2).
Duan discloses the lens element according to claim 12. However, Duan does not disclose wherein at least one of: a density of optical elements, an optical power of the optical elements, a size of the optical elements, or a prismatic angle of the optical elements, is greater in an upper side than in a lower side of the lens element. Neitz et al. teaches wherein at least one of: a density of optical elements, an optical power of the optical elements, a size of the optical elements, or a prismatic angle of the optical elements, is greater in an upper side than in a lower side of the lens element (figure 14B)(col.14, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Neitz to device of Duan for purpose of forming ophthalmic lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 2, 3 and 16-18 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.
2. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 2) determining a temporo-nasal ratio quantifying the ratio between a dimension of a nasal side of the lens element and a dimension of an opposite temporal side of the lens element based on the fitting data, wherein the at least one parameter of the optical elements is optimized based on the temporo-nasal ratio; (claim 3) determining an upper-lower ratio quantifying the ratio between a dimension of an upper part of the lens element and a dimension of an opposite lower part of the lens element based on the fitting data, wherein the at least one parameter of the optical elements is optimized based on upper-lower ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872