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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Specification support for the amendments and the newly added claims are provided in the remarks that follow. No new subject matter has been introduced," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the applicant should specifically point out the support for any and all amendments and show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04. Examiner submits that new matter has been added to the claims of the present application. Please see § 112(a) section below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Due to the nature of the objection, as presented in the office action, where just about every claim limitation is set forth in a long list, the Applicant identifies herein below where each claim limitation is illustrated in the figures…In view of the Applicant's detailed explanations above, all of the objections to the drawings should be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. The drawings merely depict a generic lens drawn as a circle with schematic lines suggesting thickness, and conceptual illustrations of image redirection and distortion correction. There is no depiction specific to lens structure, no supporting illustration of curvature, thickness relationships, etc., and no visual or structural detail showing how these parameters produce prism or atoric correction. The drawings mentioned mainly convey functional outcomes without showing distinct features corresponding to the lens/first lens and second lens. The drawings fail to convey sufficient structural detail for the lenses themselves despite the claims being directed entirely to lenses and optical devices. See drawings objections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "On page 4 of the office action, the examiner objects to a several claims due to the informalities noted therein. As presented above, the Applicant has amended the claims to address these informalities. As such, the claim objections should be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Applicant failed to address all lack of antecedent basis issues presented in the claims. See claim objections below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "While the Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's interpretation…there is no longer any basis to argue that claims 1-18 should be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f)," the Examiner traverses. Examiner restates that the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function(s) in the claims and no association between the structure and the function(s) can be found in the specification. All of these limitations are purely functional and are not linked to any specific optical structure of the lens and/or optical device that performs these functions. See §§§ 112(a), 112(f), and 112(b) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance. Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Applicant submits that the amendments to the claims overcome each of the Examiner's reasons for rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 USC §112(b). First, the claim amendments, among other things, delete the term "stage" throughout…achieved through the structural configuration of the lens's thickness and curvature," the Examiner traverses. Deleting the term “stage” does not cure the claims of their indefinite deficiencies, for there is still no specific structure of the lens(es) and optical device to perform the functions being claimed. A thickness and curvature of a lens being amended into the claims is generic recitation of any lens system that meets the required limitations, for these features are inherent to every lens. Examiner reminds the applicant that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Examiner invites applicant to specifically point out the structural properties (e.g., lens parameters, values of thickness, values of curvature, values of refractive index of lens material, structural configuration of the lens's thickness and curvature etc.) of the lens(es) in the as-filed specification, for Examiner submits that no written description support for these recitations have been identified. Furthermore, and in regards to the argument that “…one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prism correction and atoric correction are achieved through the structural configuration of the lens's thickness and curvature,” the applicant relying on what those skilled in the art would understand does not remedy the deficiency, for “it is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”. See MPEP § 2163. The burden of proof is on the specification and drawings themselves to enable and describe the claimed features, not on the person having ordinary skill in the art to infer unstated or undescribed elements.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Still further, the Applicant submits that the claims, as amended, are not impermissible hybrid apparatus/method claims…Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC§112(b)," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that “Apparatus claims routinely include functional language describing intended use without converting the claim into a method claim,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, for the claims require intended results that occur only when a human viewer uses the lens (e.g., directing a viewer’s line of sight, what is perceived, reduction of vergence, appearance at optical infinity, etc.,). These limitations depend on the physiology and position of a viewer and cannot be verified from the lens structure alone. The structure recitations of thickness, curvature, and refractive index of a lens is purely generic and is not tied to any specific configuration that inherently produces the claimed intended results. Examiner submits that there is no structural limitations (e.g., defined surfaces, profiles, relationships, etc.) that would necessarily achieve these intended results independent of user interaction. Merely labeling these apparatus and method-of-use limitations as intended use does not cure the indefinite deficiencies, for the claim language imposes functional requirements that rely on a human subject rather than defining the lens and optical device structures themselves. Examiner reminds the applicant that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As an initial matter, the Applicant submits that the amendments to the claims add explicit structural elements…The Applicant will now focus on limitations recited in each of the independent claims 1 and 8," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above in the present Office action. Kozu discloses a lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) comprising: a thickness (lens thickness and diameter, refractive index of lens surface material; [0189], [0233]); and a curvature (curvature of lens surface; [0152]), wherein the thickness and curvature (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) provide prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]); and atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]). Also, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "First, Kozu does not disclose "atoric correction" as recited in the claims…as recited in amended claim 1," the Examiner traverses. The argument improperly relies on terminology rather than substance, for Kozu teaches the same corrective principle despite not utilizing the word “atoric.” Examiner reminds the applicant that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131. The claims and as-filed specification do not define atoric with any structural specificity, for they only recite the functional and intended result of reshaping an image to reduce distortion caused by prism correction. Kozu expressly teaches modifying lens surface curvature (i.e., non-uniform/gradient curvature) to compensate for distortion introduced by prismatic effects ([0152], [0302], and [0344]). The claimed trapezoidal distortion is simply a type of prismatic distortion and Kozu’s teaching of adjusting curvatures to reduce such distortion reads directly on the claimed functionality. Examiner reminds the applicant that the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP § 2123. Furthermore, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of reshaping the image to reduce trapezoidal distortion due to the prism correction. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” See MPEP § 2114.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Second, Kozu does not disclose "trapezoidal distortion," as recited…geometric trapezoidal distortion that results from the claimed prism correction," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above in the present Office action. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Kozu discloses a lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) wherein the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) reshapes the image (lens surface shape is designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W; [0302]) to reduce trapezoidal distortion (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) due to the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region, distortion of an image in the depth direction due to a difference in the prismatic effect; [0344] and [0349]). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner reminds the applicant that the claims recite reducing trapezoidal distortion only as a result. Kozu expressly teaches adjusting lens curvature to reduce distortion caused by prismatic correction ([0152], [0302], and [0344]), for prismatic distortion inherently produces image deformation (i.e., keystone and/or trapezoidal effects), regardless of whether it is described in terms of depth, vertical disparity, or edge height differences. Reducing distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction from prism correction, as taught by Kozu ([0301], [0338], and [0344-349]), encompasses correcting the keystone effect and/or geometric trapezoidal distortion, for any correction that makes the vertical height of both left and right sides equal and eliminates the depth skew resulting from this height difference, is correcting trapezoidal distortion.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Third, Kozu does not disclose the claimed prism correction that "redirects an image…passively compensates for distortion caused by prismatic effects," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above in the present Office action. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Kozu discloses a lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) wherein the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) redirects an image (approximates distortion of image generated by prismatic effect of spectacle lens; [0344]) such that a viewer's line of sight is directed forward (difference in prismatic effect with respect to line of sight of right eye is easily generated, direction of front view of line of sight; [0349] and [0373]) towards the lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]). In other words, Kozu is not limited to passive distortion compensation, for it expressly teaches prism effects relative to the viewer’s line of sight and illustrates directing the line of sight toward a forward viewing direction through the lens, as taught by Kozu ([0349], [0373], and [0351]). Examiner reminds the applicant that the claim recites an intended result of a well-known prism function without claiming a distinct structural limitation. The claims lack concrete structural limitations and instead rely on intended results that correspond to viewer perception. Again, the Examiner reminds the applicant that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Applicant now jumps to dependent claim 11. The Applicant submits that Kozu does not disclose…by removing stereopsis such that both eyes see identical images. See e.g., Specification at [32]," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above in the present Office action. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17)…reducing stereopsis (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) and causing the image to appear at optical infinity from a perspective of the viewer (distance portion of pair of progressive addition lenses is not limited as long as distance portion is a region for viewing farther than a near distance; [0131], [0299], and [0299]). Examiner invites the applicant to provide evidence of how a distance portion of a lens not being limited contemplates finite viewing distances and precludes optical infinity. Examiner reminds the applicant that the claim recites an intended result of a well-known prism function without claiming a distinct structural limitation. The claims lack concrete structural limitations and instead rely on intended results that correspond to viewer perception. See MPEP § 2114. See § 102 rejection(s) for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Applicant also separately addresses dependent claim 14…specific optical configuration that Kozu clearly fails to disclose," the Examiner traverses. Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17)…reducing ([0323], [0372-376], and [0382]; fig. 18) the vergence angle (fig. 18-19b) between the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]) associated with the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]; fig. 18-19b) associated with the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19) to zero degrees (e.g., direction of front view is angle θ=0 for convergence; [0367]; fig. 19a). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the lines of sight of both eyes are parallel, as if viewing an object at optical infinity”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s argument appears to mischaracterize Kozu’s disclosure and the distinction made in the argument is not persuasive. Kozu defines a coordinate origin tying θ = 0 to the forward viewing direction of the line of sight for the integrated eye system and analyzes how the lines of sight deviate from that direction ([0367]; fig. 19). By centering the system and driving the viewing directions to the forward direction (i.e., θ = 0), the prior art of Kozu is effectively aligning the lines of sight with no angular deviation in the horizontal plane. In other words, when both eyes are directed to the same forward direction (i.e., θ = 0), the relative angle between these lines of sight (i.e., the vergence angle) is necessarily reduced to zero which is parallel viewing, which corresponds to viewing at optical infinity (as seen in fig. 19). Thus, applicant’s argument is improperly identifying θ = 0 as a mere coordinate label separate from its optical meaning. Examiner invites the applicant to provide evidence rebutting Kozu’s teaching of aligning line of sight directions to the forward direction expressly teaching reducing the vergence angle to zero ([0367]; fig. 19). Examiner also reminds the applicant that the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of their claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As presented above, the Applicant added new claims 19 and 20…which directly affects how the thickness and curvature achieve the prism and atoric corrections," the Examiner traverses. The newly added limitations reciting that the thickness and curvature, in combination with the refractive index, provides prism and atoric correction for the lens/first lens and second lens lack adequate written description support. The as-filed specification (dated 26 December 2023) merely states that “Parameter n represents the refractive index of the lens” (para. [72]) and “so that the thickness and curvature of the lens causes the lens to have the functionality of at least a prism correction stage and an atoric correction stage” (para. [67]), and is silent as to any relationship between refractive index, thickness, and curvature in producing prism or atoric correction. See § 112(a) section below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 12 presents illegible and blurry text. The drawings have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) and text that is illegible (reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1); See also MPEP § 507.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thickness, curvature, refractive index, the thickness, curvature, and refractive index provide the prism correction and the atoric correction, prism correction, atoric correction, trapezoidal distortion, a single intervention, a single surface of the lens, rotating the image about a vertical axis by a number of degrees, first prism correction, first atoric correction, second prism correction, second atoric correction, image to appear at optical infinity from the perspective of the viewer, vergence angle between the line of sight associated with the first eye of the viewer and the line of sight associated with the second eye of the viewer, first magnification, second magnification, first magnification and the second magnification are the same, and wherein the second lens has a same refractive index, and wherein the thickness, curvature, and refractive index of the first lens provide the first prism correction and the first atoric correction, and the thickness, curvature, and refractive index of the second lens provide the second prism correction and the second atoric correction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “wherein the lens has a refractive index, and wherein the thickness, curvature, and refractive index provide the prism correction and the atoric correction” (Claim 19) and “wherein the first lens has a refractive index, wherein the second lens has a same refractive index, and wherein the thickness, curvature, and refractive index of the first lens provide the first prism correction and the first atoric correction, and the thickness, curvature, and refractive index of the second lens provide the second prism correction and the second atoric correction” (Claim 20).
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length (more than 150 words, i.e., as-filed abstract, dated 26 December 2023, contains 197 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the redirection of the image" in lines 5-6 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the reduction of the vergence angle" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reshaped image" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 19 and 20, the newly added limitations reciting that the thickness and curvature, in combination with the refractive index, provides prism and atoric correction for the lens/first lens and second lens lack adequate written description support. The as-filed specification (dated 26 December 2023) merely states that “Parameter n represents the refractive index of the lens” (para. [72]) and “so that the thickness and curvature of the lens causes the lens to have the functionality of at least a prism correction stage and an atoric correction stage” (para. [67]), and is silent as to any relationship between refractive index, thickness, and curvature in producing prism or atoric correction. There is no disclosure describing how refractive index, thickness, and curvature contribute to such corrections, nor any indication that the first and second lenses share the same refractive index or that these parameters collectively provide the claimed optical functions. Examiner notes that there is no specification support for how refractive index contributes to prism and atoric correction for the lens, what the relationship is between refractive index, thickness, and curvature in producing these corrections, why the first and second lenses have the same refractive index, how the first and second lenses provide distinct prism and atoric corrections, what structure or design achieves these optical functions, etc. Therefore, these amended and newly added claims introduce new matter not reasonably conveyed to a person having ordinary skill in the art as being in the inventor’s possession at the time of filing.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "prism correction redirects an image" in Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-12, "atoric correction reshapes the image" in Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, and 15, "redirect and reshape the image...reducing stereopsis and causing the image to appear at optical infinity" in Claim 11, and "rotates the image...reducing a vergence angle" in Claims 13 and 14.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations "prism correction redirects an image" in Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-12, "atoric correction reshapes the image" in Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, and 15, "redirect and reshape the image...reducing stereopsis and causing the image to appear at optical infinity" in Claim 11, and "rotates the image...reducing a vergence angle" in Claims 13 and 14 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function: the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function(s) in the claims and no association between the structure and the function(s) can be found in the specification. All of these limitations are purely functional and are not linked to any specific optical structure of the lens and/or optical device that performs these functions. Since there are no structural boundaries provided within the disclosure, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what lens shape, curvature, surface profile, or even geometry that constitutes the claimed prism and atoric corrections, or how any structure performs the recited optical transformations and intended results.
Therefore, Claims 1-18 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
With respect to Claims 1-20, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942); In the current instance, “atoric correction reshapes the image to reduce trapezoidal distortion” in Claims 1, 5, 8, and 15, “reduces stereopsis and causing the image to appear at optical infinity from the perspective of the viewer” in Claim 11, and “reducing a vergence angle/reduction of the vergence angle” in Claims 13-15 merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function/result achieved by the invention, and thus, the boundaries of the scope are unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(g).
With respect to Claims 1-20, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the current instance, “such that a viewer's line of sight is directed forward towards the lens” in Claim 1, “reshapes the image from a three-dimensional rotated rectangle, perceived by the viewer as a two-dimensional trapezoid, to a three-dimensional rotated trapezoid, perceived as a two-dimensional rectangle by the viewer” in Claims 6 and 16, “causing the image to appear at optical infinity from the perspective of the viewer” in Claim 11, and “reducing trapezoidal distortion perceived by the…eye of the viewer” in Claims 15 and 16, recite methods of using the apparatus within apparatus claim limitations. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows a viewer’s line of sight to be directed toward a lens, a viewer to perceive a reshaped image, a viewer to perceive an image appearing at optical infinity, a viewer to perceive a trapezoidal distortion, or whether infringement occurs when the image is actually perceived by a viewer in such ways. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a lens and optical device.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP § 2173.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed. If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozu US 20210271108 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Kozu discloses a lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) comprising:
a thickness (lens thickness and diameter, refractive index of lens surface material; [0189], [0233]); and
a curvature (curvature of lens surface; [0152]),
wherein the thickness and curvature (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) provide prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]); and atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]),
wherein the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) redirects an image (approximates distortion of image generated by prismatic effect of spectacle lens; [0344]) such that a viewer's line of sight is directed forward (difference in prismatic effect with respect to line of sight of right eye is easily generated, direction of front view of line of sight; [0349] and [0373]) towards the lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]), and
wherein the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) reshapes the image (lens surface shape is designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W; [0302]) to reduce trapezoidal distortion (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) due to the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region, distortion of an image in the depth direction due to a difference in the prismatic effect; [0344] and [0349]).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 2, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 1, wherein the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention (prismatic adjustment region and lens surface designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W, integrated eye 12M; [0301-302] and [0367]).
With respect to Claim 3, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 2, wherein the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention ([0301-302] and [0367]) on a single surface (positions of regions within progressive addition lens in which distortion of image generated by difference in prismatic effect is felt and effect of improving distortion of image is large; [0397]; fig. 16-21) of the lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]).
With respect to Claim 4, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 1, wherein the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) redirects the image ([0344]) by rotating the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) about a vertical axis (method of obtaining surface prism difference in horizontal direction, by employing the design method of progressive addition lens, directions of lines of sight in vertical direction of both eyes can be aligned; [0323] and [0382]) by a number of degrees (horizontal direction is shown as tan θ, θ=±48 degrees in the horizontal direction [0367-368]) that relates to interpupillary distance (interpupillary distance PD, viewing angle of θ=±48 degrees; [0368] and [0372-373]).
With respect to Claim 5, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 1, wherein the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) reshapes the image ([0302]) and reduces trapezoidal distortion ([0301], [0338], and [0344]).
With respect to Claim 6, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 5, wherein the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) further reshapes the image ([0302]) from a three-dimensional rotated rectangle, perceived by the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) as a two-dimensional trapezoid, to a three-dimensional rotated trapezoid, perceived as a two-dimensional rectangle (regardless of direction of line of sight, an image of an object, e.g., 3D rotated rectangle, obtained through progressive addition lens always exists in either the depth direction or front direction, contributing to reduction of distortion in depth direction, inclusive of perspective distortion; [0338]; fig. 18) by the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19).
With respect to Claim 7, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 1, wherein the thickness and curvature (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) further provide magnification (position of region 310 as position where addition power ADD of 85% to 100%; [0397]).
With respect to Claim 8, Kozu discloses an optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) comprising: a first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) having a thickness and curvature providing (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) a first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and a first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]), the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) redirecting an image (approximates distortion of image generated by prismatic effect of spectacle lens; [0344]) such that a line of sight associated with a first eye of a viewer is directed (difference in prismatic effect with respect to line of sight of right eye is easily generated, direction of front view of line of sight; [0349] and [0373]) towards the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]), and the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) reshaping the image (lens surface shape is designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W; [0302]) to reduce trapezoidal distortion (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) due to the redirection of the image (distortion of an image in the depth direction due to a difference in the prismatic effect; [0349]) by the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]); and
a second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) having a thickness and curvature providing (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) a second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and a second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]), the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) redirecting the image (approximates distortion of image generated by prismatic effect of spectacle lens; [0344]) such that a line of sight associated with a second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19) is directed (difference in prismatic effect with respect to line of sight of left eye is easily generated; [0349]) towards the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]), and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) reshaping the image (lens surface shape is designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W; [0302]) to reduce trapezoidal distortion (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) due to the redirection of the image (distortion of an image in the depth direction due to a difference in the prismatic effect; [0349]) the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 9, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 8, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention (prismatic adjustment region and lens surface designed so as to bring the difference V closer to the difference W, integrated eye 12M; [0301-302] and [0367]) in the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]), and wherein the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention ([0301-302] and [0367]) in the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]).
With respect to Claim 10, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 9, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention ([0301-302] and [0367]) on a single surface (positions of regions within progressive addition lens in which distortion of image generated by difference in prismatic effect is felt and effect of improving distortion of image is large; [0397]; fig. 16-21) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]), and wherein the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) are integrated together in a single intervention ([0301-302] and [0367]) on a single surface ([0397]; fig. 17-21) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]).
With respect to Claim 11, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 8, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) together (fig. 17) with the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) redirect ([0344]) and reshape the image ([0302]) for the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19), respectively, reducing stereopsis (reduce distortion in the depth direction and/or the eye position difference in the vertical direction; [0301], [0338], and [0344]) and causing the image to appear at optical infinity from a perspective of the viewer (distance portion of pair of progressive addition lenses is not limited as long as distance portion is a region for viewing farther than a near distance; [0131], [0299], and [0299]).
With respect to Claim 12, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 8, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) redirects the image ([0344]) by rotating the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in a first direction (horizontal direction x; [0319] and [0363-364]) about a vertical axis (method of obtaining surface prism difference in horizontal direction, by employing the design method of progressive addition lens, directions of lines of sight in vertical direction of both eyes can be aligned; [0323] and [0382]) by a number of degrees (horizontal direction is shown as tan θ, θ=±48 degrees in the horizontal direction [0367-368]),
wherein the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) redirects the image ([0344]) by rotating the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in a second direction ([0319] and [0363-364]), opposite the first direction (opposite direction, horizontal direction -x; [0319]), about the vertical axis ([0323] and [0382]) by the number of degrees ([0367-368]), and
wherein the number of degrees ([0367-368]) relates to an interpupillary distance (interpupillary distance PD, viewing angle of θ=±48 degrees; [0368] and [0372-373]) of the first eye (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19).
With respect to Claim 13, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 12, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) rotates the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in the first direction (horizontal direction x; [0319] and [0363-364]) about the vertical axis ([0323] and [0382]) and the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) rotates the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in the second direction (horizontal direction -x; [0319]) about the vertical axis ([0323] and [0382]) reducing (directions of lines of sight in vertical direction of both eyes can be aligned; [0323], [0372-376], and [0382]; fig. 18) a vergence angle (fig. 18-19b) between the line of sight (e.g., angle difference between direction of line of sight of right eye and direction of line of sight of left eye as vergence angle; [0163] convergence angle; [0372]) associated with the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]; fig. 18-19b) associated with the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19).
With respect to Claim 14, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 13, wherein the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) rotates the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in the first direction (horizontal direction x; [0319] and [0363-364]) about the vertical axis ([0323] and [0382]) and the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) rotates the image (as seen in fig. 18-19b) in the second direction (horizontal direction -x; [0319]) about the vertical axis ([0323] and [0382]) reducing ([0323], [0372-376], and [0382]; fig. 18) the vergence angle (fig. 18-19b) between the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]) associated with the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]; fig. 18-19b) associated with the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19) to zero degrees (e.g., direction of front view is angle θ=0 for convergence; [0367]; fig. 19a).
With respect to Claim 15, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 13, wherein the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) reshapes the image ([0302]) and reduces trapezoidal distortion ([0301], [0338], and [0344]) perceived by the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19),
wherein the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) reshapes the image ([0302]) and reduces trapezoidal distortion ([0301], [0338], and [0344]) perceived by the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19), and
wherein the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) reshape the image ([0302]), respectively, without affecting (prismatic effect reduced in consideration of difference in directions of line of sight of both eyes of the wearer; [0396]) the reduction ([0323], [0372-376], and [0382]; fig. 18) of the vergence angle (fig. 18-19b) between the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]; fig. 18-19b) associated with the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the line of sight ([0163] and [0372]; fig. 18-19b) associated with the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19).
With respect to Claim 16, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 15, wherein the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) reshapes the image ([0302]) from a three-dimensional rotated rectangle, perceived by the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) as a two-dimensional trapezoid, to a three-dimensional rotated trapezoid, perceived as a two-dimensional rectangle (regardless of direction of line of sight, an image of an object, e.g., 3D rotated rectangle, obtained through progressive addition lens always exists in either the depth direction or front direction, contributing to reduction of distortion in depth direction, inclusive of perspective distortion; [0338]; fig. 18) by the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19),
wherein the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) reshapes the image ([0302]) from a three-dimensional rotated rectangle, perceived by the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19) as a two-dimensional trapezoid, to a three-dimensional rotated trapezoid, perceived as a two-dimensional rectangle ([0338]; fig. 18) by the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19), and
wherein the reshaped image ([0302]) as perceived by the first eye of the viewer (12R right eye; [0412]; fig. 19) and the reshaped image ([0302]) as perceived by the second eye of the viewer (12L left eye; [0411]; fig. 19) are the same image (by employing the design method of progressive addition lens, directions of lines of sight in vertical direction of both eyes can be aligned, merging/improving distortion of the images wherein unpleasant wearing feeling caused to the wearer is reduced; [0382-389], and [0397]).
With respect to Claim 17, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 8, wherein the thickness and curvature (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) provides a first magnification (position of region 310 as position where addition power ADD of 85% to 100%; [0397]) and the thickness and curvature (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) provides a second magnification (position of region 410 as position where addition power ADD of 85% to 100%; [0397]).
With respect to Claim 18, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 17, wherein the first magnification ([0397]; fig. 17) and the second magnification ([0397]; fig. 17) are the same (positions of regions 310 and 410 as positions where addition power ADD of 85% to 100% is achieved; [0216], [0332] and [0397]).
With respect to Claim 19, Kozu discloses the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) of claim 1, wherein the lens (progressive addition lens e.g., right eye lens 300; [0084] and [0351]; fig. 16-17) has a refractive index (refractive index of lens surface material; [0189]), and wherein the thickness (lens thickness and diameter, refractive index of lens surface material; [0189], [0233]), curvature (curvature of lens surface; [0152]), and refractive index (refractive index of lens surface material; [0189]) provide (adjusting prismatic effect adjusting gradient of lens surface while adjusting curvature of lens surface within an allowable range; [0152]) the prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]).
With respect to Claim 20, Kozu discloses the optical device (pair of progressive addition lenses; [0084]; fig. 17) of claim 8, wherein the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) has a refractive index (lens surface prism power normalized by addition power ADD defined as inclination in vertical direction x (refractive index of lens material−1)×100 [prism diopter]/addition power ADD [diopter] on one surface of lens surfaces on both sides of one lens, lens surface prism power distribution normalized by addition power ADD of right eye lens 300 and left eye lens 400; [0352-353]), wherein the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) has a same refractive index (e.g., among prescription information for manufacturing spectacle lens pair, refractive index was 1.60; [0361], lens surface prism power distribution normalized by addition power ADD of right eye lens 300 and left eye lens 400; [0352-353]), and wherein the thickness (lens thickness and diameter, refractive index of lens surface material; [0189], [0233]), curvature (curvature of lens surface; [0152]), and refractive index ([0352-353]) of the first lens (right eye lens 300; [0351]) provide the first prism correction (right eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the first atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of right lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]), and the thickness (lens thickness and diameter, refractive index of lens surface material; [0189], [0233]), curvature (curvature of lens surface; [0152]), and refractive index ([0352-353]) of the second lens (left eye lens 400; [0351]) provide the second prism correction (left eye lens includes prism adjustment region; [0344]) and the second atoric correction (adjusting the gradient of left lens surface while adjusting the curvature of lens surface, lens surface shape is designed; [0152], [0302], and [0344]).
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 29 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights