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
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 03/12/2024 and 09/16/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper dependency. Line 1 recites “the contact lens pair system of claim 25”, wherein “the contact lens pair system” is recited in claim 26, not claim 25. For the purpose of continuing examination, it is assumed that claim 34 depends upon claim 26. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 25-42 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 26 recite the selection of zones in order to obtain a contact lens pair that “emulates monovision”, “emulates partial monovision” and “emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation”. These limitations do not provide a clear indication of the scope of the claims. The claims recite a result achieved without limitations to further define the structure or technical features to obtain the results. Thus, the boundaries of the claim scope are unclear.
Dependent claims 12, 13 and 25, recite that the visual acuity of the contact lens pair are greater in comparison to that of a “1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair”. Due to the variable nature of the “1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair”, and the trademark being used as a limitation to identify or describe a particular product, the claim scope is uncertain and is therefore indefinite.
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 18-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roffman et al. (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790), hereinafter “Roffman”.
Regarding claim 18, Roffman discloses a contact lens pair (Paragraph 11, Line 1), comprising: a center-far lens for a dominant eye of a contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 11, Lines 3-7), comprising: a center-far optical zone of a center-far zone diameter disposed around a first optical axis and having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the dominant eye (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 14); and a first transitional optical zone surrounding the first center optical zone, the first transitional optical zone having a first progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile F, Paragraph 14); and a center-near lens for a non-dominant eye of the contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15), comprising: a center-near optical zone of a center-near zone diameter targeted to an average pupil size of a population (Paragraph 47), and surrounding a second optical axis and having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the non-dominant eye and an add power relative to the first power (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15); and a second transitional optical zone surrounding the second center optical zone, the second transitional optical zone having a second progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile D or E, Paragraph 15). Paragraph 47 of Roffman teaches that the selection of the central zone diameter is based upon the lens wearer for optimizing the correction required for said wearer. The recited configuration of the contact lenses alone and in combination is a result-effective variable dependent upon the corrective requirements and pupil diameter of the wearer in which it is intended to provide optimized correction for said wearer.
Regarding claim 19, Roffman further discloses wherein the center-far zone diameter is between 1.8 millimeters (mm) and 3.8 mm (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 20, Roffman further discloses wherein the center-near zone diameter is between 2.6 millimeters (mm) and 4.0 mm (Paragraph 47 – incorporates the teachings of USP No. 5,488,312 which, in claim 14, recites a central region having a diameter of 3 mm).
Regarding claim 22, Roffman further discloses wherein the first progressive power profile and the second progressive power profiles at any radius from their respective first optical axis and second optical axis differ by less than 1.4 diopters; by less than 1.3 diopters; by less than 1.2 diopters; by less than 1.1 diopters; or by less than 1.0 diopters (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Roffman further discloses wherein: the first progressive power profile comprises a first continuous power profile (see Fig. 2, Profile F); and the second progressive power profile comprises a second continuous power profile (see Fig. 2, Profiles D or E).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14-17, 21, 24, 26-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Steinert et al. (USP No. 6,537,317), hereinafter “Steinert”.
Regarding claim 1, Roffman discloses a contact lens pair (Paragraph 11, Line 1), comprising: a center-far lens for a dominant eye of a contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 11, Lines 3-7), comprising: a center-far optical zone of a center-far zone diameter disposed around a first optical axis and having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the dominant eye (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 14); and a first transitional optical zone surrounding the first center optical zone, the first transitional optical zone having a first progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile F, Paragraph 14); and a center-near lens for a non-dominant eye of the contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15), comprising: a center-near optical zone of a center-near zone diameter surrounding a second optical axis and having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the non-dominant eye and add power of at least +0.75 diopters relative to the first power (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15); and a second transitional optical zone surrounding the second center optical zone, the second transitional optical zone having a second progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile D or E, Paragraph 15). Roffman discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a near- distance object, a contact lens pair comprising the center-far lens and the center-near lens emulates monovision, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision; and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation.
Paragraph 47 of Roffman teaches that the selection of the central zone diameter is based upon the lens wearer for optimizing the correction required for said wearer. Steinert is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge.
In the same field of endeavor, Steinert discloses wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a near- distance object (Col. 3, Lines 39-54), a contact lens pair comprising the center-far lens and the center-near lens emulates monovision (Col. 2, Lines 13-24), and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision (Col. 2, Lines 13-24, Col. 3, Lines 39-54); and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation (Col. 2, Lines 13-24, Col. 3, Lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a near- distance object, a contact lens pair comprising the center-far lens and the center-near lens emulates monovision, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision; and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation of Steinert for the purpose of providing a combined effect of enhancing distance, intermediate and near visual function for a wearer (Col. 1, Line 67 – Col. 2, Line 1).
The recited configuration of the contact lenses alone and in combination is a result-effective variable dependent upon the corrective requirements and pupil diameter of the wearer in which it is intended to provide optimized correction for said wearer.
Regarding claim 2, Roffman further discloses wherein the center-far zone diameter is between 1.8 millimeters (mm) and 3.8 mm (Paragraph 47). According to In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 3, Roffman further discloses wherein the center-near zone diameter is between 2.6 millimeters (mm) and 4.0 mm (Paragraph 47 – incorporates the teachings of USP No. 5,488,312 which, in claim 14, recites a central region having a diameter of 3 mm). According to In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 4, Roffman and Steinert teach the contact lens pair set forth above for claim 1, Steinert further discloses wherein the center-far optical zone has a spherical aberration (SPHA) dependent on the first power (Rx) (Col. 6, Lines 23-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with the teachings of Steinart for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Roffman and Steinert disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify the condition as follows: a. if Rx ≤ -3 diopters, then SPHA = 0.0082*Rx - 0.0251; and b. if Rx > -3 diopters, then SPHA=-0.0497. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman and Steinert with a. if Rx ≤ -3 diopters, then SPHA = 0.0082*Rx - 0.0251; and b. if Rx > -3 diopters, then SPHA=-0.0497 for the purpose of correcting spherical aberration (Col. 6, Lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 5, Roffman further discloses wherein the first progressive power profile and the second progressive power profiles at any radius from their respective first optical axis and second optical axis differ by less than 1.4 diopters; by less than 1.3 diopters; by less than 1.2 diopters; by less than 1.1 diopters; or by less than 1.0 diopters (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Roffman further discloses wherein: the first progressive power profile comprises a first continuous power profile (see Fig. 2, Profile F); and the second progressive power profile comprises a second continuous power profile (see Fig. 2, Profiles D or E).
Regarding claim 7, Roffman and Steinert teach the contact lens pair set forth above for claim 1, Steinert further discloses wherein the second power profile comprises a derivative power profile (see Figs. 4, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with the teachings of Steinart for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Roffman further discloses wherein: at least 65% of the add power is within two (2) millimeter (mm) radius of the second optical axis in the center-near optical zone; and the remaining add power of the add power outside of the two (2) mm radius of the second optical axis (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 14, Roffman further discloses wherein the add power provides an effective add power less than +2.0 diopters (see Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 15, Roffman further discloses wherein the second power is for hyperopia correction (Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 16, Roffman further discloses wherein the center-near zone diameter is targeted to an average pupil size of a population (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 17, Roffman further discloses wherein population is one (1) (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 21, Roffman discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the center-far optical zone has a spherical aberration (SPHA) dependent on the first power (Rx) as follows: a. if Rx ≤ -3 diopters, then SPHA = 0.0082*Rx - 0.0251; and b. if Rx > -3 diopters, then SPHA=-0.0497. In the same field of endeavor, Steinert discloses wherein the center-far optical zone has a spherical aberration (SPHA) dependent on the first power (Rx) (Col. 6, Lines 23-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with wherein the center-far optical zone has a spherical aberration (SPHA) dependent on the first power (Rx) of Steinert for the purpose of providing a combined effect of enhancing distance, intermediate and near visual function for a wearer (Col. 1, Line 67 – Col. 2, Line 1). Roffman and Steinert disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify the condition as follows: a. if Rx ≤ -3 diopters, then SPHA = 0.0082*Rx - 0.0251; and b. if Rx > -3 diopters, then SPHA=-0.0497. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman and Steinert with a. if Rx ≤ -3 diopters, then SPHA = 0.0082*Rx - 0.0251; and b. if Rx > -3 diopters, then SPHA=-0.0497 for the purpose of correcting spherical aberration (Col. 6, Lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 24, Roffman discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the second progressive power profile comprises a derivative continuous power profile. In the same field of endeavor, Steinert discloses wherein the second progressive power profile comprises a derivative continuous power profile (see Figs. 4, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with wherein the second progressive power profile comprises a derivative continuous power profile of Steinert for the purpose of providing a combined effect of enhancing distance, intermediate and near visual function for a wearer (Col. 1, Line 67 – Col. 2, Line 1).
Regarding claim 26, Roffman a contact lens pair system (Paragraph 11, Line 1), comprising: a plurality of center-far lenses for a dominant eye of a contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 11, Lines 3-7), each comprising: a center-far optical zone of a center-far zone diameter disposed around a first optical axis and having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the dominant eye (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 14); and a first transitional optical zone surrounding the first center optical zone, the first transitional optical zone having a first progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile F, Paragraph 14); and a plurality of center-near lenses for a non-dominant eye of a contact lens wearer (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15), each comprising: a center-near optical zone of a center-near zone diameter surrounding a second optical axis and having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the non-dominant eye, an add power of at least +0.75 diopters relative to the first power (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 15); and a second transitional optical zone surrounding the second center optical zone, the second transitional optical zone having a second progressive power profile (see Fig. 2 – Profile D or E, Paragraph 15). Roffman discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter for a contact lens pair comprising a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenes and a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses, are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is looking at a near- distance object, the contact lens pair emulates monovision, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision; and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone for the contact lens pair are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation.
Paragraph 47 of Roffman teaches that the selection of the central zone diameter is based upon the lens wearer for optimizing the correction required for said wearer. Steinert is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge.
In the same field of endeavor, Steinert discloses wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter for a contact lens pair comprising a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenes and a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses, are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is looking at a near- distance object (Col. 3, Lines 39-54), the contact lens pair emulates monovision (Col. 2, Lines 13-24), and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision (Col. 2, Lines 13-24, Col. 3, Lines 39-54); and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone for the contact lens pair are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation (Col. 2, Lines 13-24, Col. 3, Lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair system of Roffman with wherein the center-far zone diameter and the center-near zone diameter for a contact lens pair comprising a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenes and a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses, are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is looking at a near- distance object, the contact lens pair emulates monovision, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates partial monovision; and wherein the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone for the contact lens pair are selected such that when the contact lens wearer is focusing on an intermediate-distance object, the contact lens pair emulates an extended depth of focus lens through binocular summation of Steinert for the purpose of providing a combined effect of enhancing distance, intermediate and near visual function for a wearer (Col. 1, Line 67 – Col. 2, Line 1).
The recited configuration of the contact lenses alone and in combination is a result-effective variable dependent upon the corrective requirements and pupil diameter of the wearer in which it is intended to provide optimized correction for said wearer.
Regarding claim 27, Roffman further discloses wherein each center-far zone diameter of the plurality of center-far lenses is between 1.8 millimeters (mm) and 3.8 mm (Paragraph 47). According to In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 28, Roffman further discloses wherein each center-near zone diameter of the plurality of center-nears lenses is between 2.6 millimeters (mm) and 4.0 mm (Paragraph 47 – incorporates the teachings of USP No. 5,488,312 which, in claim 14, recites a central region having a diameter of 3 mm). According to In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 31, Roffman further discloses wherein the add power of the plurality of center-near lenses includes an effective add power in a range of +0.75 diopters to + +1.75 diopters, including endpoints (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 8-10, 29, 30, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Steinert (USP No. 6,537,317) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindacher et al. (USP No. 8,672,474), hereinafter “Lindacher”.
Regarding claim 8, Roffman and Steinert disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the center-far lens has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters; a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters, and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters. In the same field of endeavor, Lindacher discloses wherein the center-far lens has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6); a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6), and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman and Steinert with wherein the center-far lens has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters; a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters, and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between +0.1 and +0.4 diopters of Lindacher for the purpose of providing modified monovision (Col. 9, Lines 29-30). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Roffman, Steinert and Lindacher teach the contact lens pair set forth above for claim 8, Lindacher further discloses wherein the center-near lens has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of or substantially of: a non-dominant low-add power profile comprising the center-near zone diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm, and the add power between +0.9 and +1.1 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6); a non-dominant mid-add power profile comprising the center-near diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm, and the add power between +0.9 and +1.2 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6); and a non-dominant high-add power profile comprising the center-near diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between +4.0 mm to +6.0 mm, and the add power of between +1.0 and +1.2 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman and Steinert with the teachings of Lindacher for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 8. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Roffman further discloses wherein the first transitional optical zone of the center-far lens and the second transitional optical zone of the center-near lens, at any radial distance from the respective first and second optical axis differ by less than 1.4 diopters, less than 1.3 diopters, less than 1.2 diopters, less than 1.1 diopters or less than 1.0 diopters (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, Roffman and Steinert disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein each center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters; a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters, and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters. In the same field of endeavor, Lindacher discloses wherein each center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm (see Figs. 1-3, 6), the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter (see Figs. 1-3, 6), and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6); a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter (see Figs. 1-3, 6), and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6), and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm (see Figs. 1-3, 6), the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair system of Roffman and Steinert with wherein each center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a dominant low-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.0 and 2.8 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters; a dominant mid-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 2.4 and 3.8 mm the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than the center-far zone diameter, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters, and a dominant high-add power profile comprising a center-far zone diameter between 1.8 and 2.2 mm, the first transitional optical zone having a first transitional radius greater than 2.0 mm, and a dominant add power provided in the center-far zone increasing radially from 0 at lens center to between 0.1 and 0.4 diopters of Lindacher for the purpose of providing modified monovision (Col. 9, Lines 29-30). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 30, Roffman, Steinert and Lindacher teach the contact lens pair system set forth above for claim 29, Lindacher further discloses wherein each center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses has a power profile comprised from the group consisting of: a non-dominant low-add power profile comprising the center-near zone diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm, and the add power between +0.9 and +1.1 diopters; a non-dominant mid-add power profile comprising the center-near diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm, and the add power between +0.9 and +1.2 diopters; and a non-dominant high-add power profile comprising the center-near diameter of 4.0 mm, the second transitional optical zone having a second transitional diameter between +4.0 mm to +6.0 mm, and the add power of between +1.0 and 1.2 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair system of Roffman and Steinert with the teachings of Lindacher for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 29. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 32, Roffman and Steinert discloses the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein: the plurality of center-far lenses has a plurality of first power profiles; the plurality of center-near lenses has a plurality of second power profiles; the plurality of first power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints; and the plurality of second power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints. In the same field of endeavor, Lindacher discloses wherein: the plurality of center-far lenses has a plurality of first power profiles (see Figs. 6, 7); the plurality of center-near lenses has a plurality of second power profiles (see Figs. 6, 7); the plurality of first power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints (Col. 4, Lines 57-67); and the plurality of second power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints (Col. 4, Lines 57-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair system of Roffman and Steinert with wherein: the plurality of center-far lenses has a plurality of first power profiles; the plurality of center-near lenses has a plurality of second power profiles; the plurality of first power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints; and the plurality of second power profiles are based on a respective refractive correction between -9.0 diopters and +6.0 diopters including endpoints of Lindacher for the purpose of providing modified monovision (Col. 9, Lines 29-30). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 33, Roffman, Steinert and Lindacher teach the contact lens pair system set forth above for claim 32, Lindacher further discloses wherein at least one of:(1) each of the first transitional zones of the plurality of center-far lenses has less than a 1.0 diopter variation from the other first power profiles of the plurality of first power profiles at a given radius from the first optical axis (Col. 4, Lines 57-67); and (2) each of the second transitional zones of the plurality of center-near lenses has less than a 1.0 diopter variation from the other second power profiles of the plurality of second power profiles at a given radius from the second optical axis (Col. 4, Lines 57-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair system of Roffman and Steinert with the teachings of Lindacher for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 29. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Steinert (USP No. 6,537,317) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alcon (“Multifocal Contact Lenses with Precision Profile Design” 2020).
Regarding claim 12, Roffman and Steinert teach the contact lens pair set forth above for claim 1, Steinert further discloses having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on the intermediate- distance object or the far-distance object (Col. 2, Lines 20-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with the teachings of Steinart for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Roffman and Steinert disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye. In the same field of endeavor, Alcon discloses as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye (Pg. 25: “Study Results”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman and Steinert with as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye of Alcon for the purpose of providing an improvement in visual performance (Pg. 25: “Analysis and Conclusions”).
Regarding claim 13, Roffman, Steinert and Alcon teach the contact lens pair set forth above for claim 12, Alcon further discloses having at least a 0.8 visual acuity (VA) improvement for vision focused on the near-distance object, as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair (Pg. 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with the teachings of Alcon for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Alcon (“Multifocal Contact Lenses with Precision Profile Design” 2020).
Regarding claim 25, Roffman discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on the intermediate-distance object or the far-distance object, as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye. In the same field of endeavor, Alcon discloses having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on the intermediate-distance object or the far-distance object, as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye (Pg. 25: “Study Results”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact lens pair of Roffman with having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on the intermediate-distance object or the far-distance object, as compared to a 1-day Acuvue® moist presbyopia contact lens pair which has a center-near extended depth of focus design (EDOF) for both dominant and non-dominant eye of Alcon for the purpose of providing an improvement in visual performance (Pg. 25: “Analysis and Conclusions”).
Claims 34-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Steinert (USP No. 6,537,317) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Chaouk et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0342453), hereinafter “Chaouk”.
Regarding claim 34, Roffman and Steinart disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify a method of fitting a contact lens pair of the contact lens pair system to a contact lens wearer, comprising: a) selecting an add power for the contact lens wearer; and b) selecting a next contact lens pair for the contact lens wearer, comprising: a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's non-dominant eye and having the add power of the presbyopia correction for the contact lens wearer's non- dominant eye; and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's dominant eye. In the same field of endeavor, Chaouk discloses a method of fitting a contact lens pair of the contact lens pair system to a contact lens wearer, comprising: a) selecting an add power for the contact lens wearer (Paragraph 23); and b) selecting a next contact lens pair for the contact lens wearer (Paragraph 23), comprising: a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's non-dominant eye and having the add power of the presbyopia correction for the contact lens wearer's non- dominant eye (Paragraphs 23, 24); and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's dominant eye (Paragraphs 23, 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with a method of fitting a contact lens pair of the contact lens pair system to a contact lens wearer, comprising: a) selecting an add power for the contact lens wearer; and b) selecting a next contact lens pair for the contact lens wearer, comprising: a center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's non-dominant eye and having the add power of the presbyopia correction for the contact lens wearer's non- dominant eye; and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the contact lens wearer's dominant eye of Chaouk for the purpose of optimizing prescription selection (Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 35, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 34, Chaouk further discloses further comprising: c) receiving feedback from the contact lens wearer based on a perceived stereopsis based on the far-distance vision acuity difference between the contact lens wearer's dominant eye and non-dominant eye when focusing on a far-distance object; and d) in response to the feedback indicating a reduced stereopsis based on the far-distance vision acuity difference for the next contact lens pair, perform at least one of: selecting a next center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses for the contact lens wearer having an increase in the next first power; and selecting a next center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses for the contact lens wearer having a decrease in next second power (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 36, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 35, Chaouk further discloses wherein step c) comprises receiving feedback from the contact lens wearer based on the contact lens wearer's perceived visual acuity when looking at the near-distance object based on a disparity in the next center-far lens and the next center-near lens (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 37, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 35, Chaouk further discloses further comprising repeating step d) until the feedback from the contact lens wearer indicates an acceptable perceived stereopsis based on the far-distance vision acuity difference between the contact lens wearer's dominant eye and non-dominant eye when focusing on the far-distance object (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 38, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 34, Chaouk further discloses wherein the increase in next first power is between +0.25 diopters and +0.5 diopters (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 39, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 34, Chaouk further discloses wherein the decrease in next second power is between - 0.25 diopters and -0.5 diopters (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 40, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 38, Chaouk further discloses wherein the increase in next first power for each repetition of step d) comprises increments of increases in next first power of +0.5 diopters, +0.5 diopters, +0.5 diopters, +0.75 diopters, and +0.75 diopters (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 41, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 40, Chaouk further discloses wherein the decrease in next second power for each repetition of step d) comprises increments of decreases in next second power of 0 diopters, -0.25 diopters, -0.5 diopters, -0.25 diopters, and -0.5 diopters (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 42, Roffman, Steinart and Chaouk teach the method set forth above for claim 38, Chaouk further discloses wherein the decrease in next second power for each repetition of step d) comprises increments of decreases in next second power of 0 diopters, -0.25 diopters, -0.5 diopters, -0.25 diopters, and -0.5 diopters (Paragraphs 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Roffman and Steinart with the teachings of Chaouk for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Prior Art Citations
Reedy et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0038173) is being cited herein to show contact lens pair relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/13/2025