DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “and than the third portion” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the phrase is “less than” or “more than” the third portion. The following rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretations. Claims 14-16 are rejected based upon the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 2013/0201445).
Regarding claim 13, Das (Figures 1A-1C; [0011]-[0026]) discloses an ophthalmic lens comprising a first surface 12 and a second surface 14 disposed about an optical axis, and a diffractive profile 28 imposed on one of the first surface or the second surface, and configured to cause a distribution of light among at least three focal lengths 30a-30b-30c including a near focal length, an intermediate focal length, and a far focal length, such that a first portion of the distribution is directed to the near focal length, a second portion of the distribution is directed to the far focal length, and a third portion of the distribution is directed to the intermediate focal length. Das discloses all the claimed limitations except that the first portion comprising a smaller fraction of total light energy passing through the lens than the second portion and than the third portion. However, the adjustment of either 3 portions are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to suit specific applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the 3 portions for application-specific purpose.
Regarding claims 14-16, Das discloses all the claimed limitations except that wherein the first portion of the distribution is smaller than a respective portion of the distribution directed to any other focal length of the at least three focal lengths, and wherein the first portion of the distribution of light is no more than 20% of the distribution of light, and wherein the second portion of the distribution of light is at least 50% of the distribution of light. However, the adjustment of light distribution of either 3 portions are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to suit specific applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the 3 portions for application-specific purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 13, the Applicant argues that The Office Action's assertion that "the adjustment of light distribution of either 3 portions are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to suit specific applications" is conclusory and does not provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Das to arrive at the claimed energy-allocation hierarchy. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. the adjustment of either 3 portions are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to suit specific applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the 3 portions for application-specific purpose.
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 JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/29/26
