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 04/02/2026 and 07/03/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
The reference cited in the IDS dated 04/02/2026 was not considered due issues regarding relevancy of the prior art to the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Comments
In view of the amendments, the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 1-17 and 25-42 and the prior objections to claims 2 and 34 are withdrawn.
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, 26-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman et al. (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790), hereinafter “Roffman”, 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 center-far 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 center-near 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 greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye; 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye.
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, a greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye (Col. 2, Lines 45-65, Col. 8, Lines 1-12), and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye (Col. 2, Lines 25-44, Col. 7, Lines 5-11); 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye (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 greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye; 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye 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) and the extended depth of focus reduces the disparity in functional vision eyes (Col. 2, Lines 22-23).
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 progressive 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 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 center-far 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 the 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 center-near 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, a greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye; 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye.
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, a greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye (Col. 2, Lines 45-65, Col. 8, Lines 1-12), and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye (Col. 2, Lines 25-44, Col. 7, Lines 5-11); 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye (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, a greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye; 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eyeof 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) and the extended depth of focus reduces the disparity in functional vision eyes (Col. 2, Lines 22-23).
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 a 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 a 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 a 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 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 +1.2 diopters (see Figs. 1-3, 6); and a non-dominant high-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 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 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 +1.2 diopters; and a non-dominant high-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 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 optical 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 optical 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 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 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 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 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.
Claims 18-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Simard et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0363654), hereinafter “Simard”.
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 center-far 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 center-near 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. Roffman discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the center-near zone diameter is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil when the contact lens wearer focuses on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis, such that either all or a majority of light received by a non-dominant eye pupil is received through the center-near optical zone when the contact lens wearer focuses on the near-distance object. In the same field of endeavor, Simard discloses wherein the center-near zone diameter is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil when the contact lens wearer focuses on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis (Paragraphs 133, 143), such that either all or a majority of light received by a non-dominant eye pupil is received through the center-near optical zone when the contact lens wearer focuses on the near-distance object (Paragraphs 133, 143).
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-near zone diameter is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil when the contact lens wearer focuses on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis, such that either all or a majority of light received by a non-dominant eye pupil is received through the center-near optical zone when the contact lens wearer focuses on the near-distance object for the purpose of providing improved optical devices and methods for managing refractive error and its evolution (Paragraph 11).
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).
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Simard (USPG Pub No. 2020/0363654) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Steinert (USP No. 6,537,317).
Regarding claim 21, Roffman and Simard disclose 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 and Simard 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, Simard 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, Simard 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 and Simard disclose the claimed invention, but do 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 and Simard 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).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roffman (USPG Pub No. 2004/0150790) in view of Simard (USPG Pub No. 2020/0363654) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Alcon (“Multifocal Contact Lenses with Precision Profile Design” 2020).
Regarding claim 25, Roffman and Simard disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on an intermediate-distance object or a far-distance object, as compared to a 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 an intermediate-distance object or a far-distance object, as compared to a 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 Simard with having a greater visual acuity (VA) for vision focused on the near-distance object with degrading vision focused on an intermediate-distance object or a far-distance object, as compared to a 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 of claim 26 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 a non-dominant eye of the contact lens wearer and having the add power of a presbyopia correction for the non-dominant eye, wherein the center-near lens is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil of the contact lens wearer when focusing on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis; and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the 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 a non-dominant eye of the contact lens wearer and having the add power of a presbyopia correction for the non-dominant eye (Paragraphs 22-24), wherein the center-near lens is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil of the contact lens wearer when focusing on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis (Paragraphs 22-24); and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the dominant eye (Paragraphs 22-24). 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 center-near lens of the plurality of center-near lenses having a second power selected to substantially correct distance vision in a non-dominant eye of the contact lens wearer and having the add power of a presbyopia correction for the non-dominant eye, wherein the center-near lens is selected based on an estimated diameter size of a constricted pupil of the contact lens wearer when focusing on a near-distance object due to pupil miosis; and a center-far lens of the plurality of center-far lenses having a first power selected to substantially correct distance vision in the 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 a far-distance vision acuity difference between the 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 the feedback from the contact lens wearer based on a perceived visual acuity of the contact lens wearer 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 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 an 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 a 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 the next first power for each repetition of step d) comprises increments of increases in the 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 a decrease in the 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 a decrease in next second power for each repetition of step d) comprises increments of decreases in the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 with respect to claims 1-17 and 26-42 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments of independent claim 1, and similarly of claim 26, Applicant argued that Roffman and Steinert do not disclose or teach the claims as presented.
Applicant stated that there is no citation in either reference to teach the added limitations. As presented above, Col. 2, Lines 13-65, of Steinart teaches the added limitations of “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 greater percentage of light is received in the non-dominant eye through the center-near optical zone than through the first and second transitional optical zones and the non-dominant eye has a higher monocular visual acuity than the dominant eye, and when the contact lens wearer is focusing on a far-distance object, the dominant eye contributes more far-distance vision correction than the non-dominant eye; 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, light received through the first transitional optical zone and the second transitional optical zone provides binocular summation with reduced monocular visual-acuity disparity between the dominant eye and the non-dominant eye”. In addition, Col. 3, Lines 39-54, Col. 7, Lines 5-11 and Col. 8, Lines 1-12 of Steinart provide further teachings.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-25 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. Simard cures the deficiencies of Roffman and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 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 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights