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 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the first argument pertaining to Morris, Applicant argues that Choi teaches against a plurality of equal energy orders. As cited in [0069] of Morris “trifocal lens may also be made with lens 10 by selecting a WSD structure 16 in which the modulation depth of a sinusoid profile is changed slightly, resulting in equal energy in the +1, 0 and -1 orders,” where the 0 order present between the +1 and -1 order allows for each order to provide a different level of focus in [0069]. As Morris is used to teach where the 0 order is between a +1 and -1 order (shown in figure 6A), where said orders defined are an odd number of orders), with the motivation used to show that doing so in the way presented in Choi will present a trifocal system in [0069]. There is not a specific teaching in Choi that would limit the energies over a -1, 0, and 1 order, and paragraphs like [0027] only state that designs “may employ” relative diffraction energy for 0, +1, +2, and +3 orders. From here, with respect to the second argument, it is stated that Choi teaches a sawtooth-shaped diffractive step diffractive profile, while Morris teaches a sinusoidal harmonic waveform splitting diffractive structure. Examiner notes that [0049] of Morris states that “any diffractive surface that can provide a WSD structure that has high diffraction efficiency in two or more orders (at the primary design wavelength) may be used. For example, the WSD structure may have blazed (i.e., sawtooth), sinusoidal, sinusoidal harmonic, square wave, or other shape profile.” While paragraph [0068] states that “a sinusoidal profile could also be used,” Morris is not solely disclosed as providing a sinusoidal profile. Additionally, as figure 6A is the figure relied upon, and as the sinusoidal harmonic WSD is disclosed as being present in figures after 10A (in [0039]-[0046]), the cited sections of Morris are not seen as requiring the sinusoidal harmonic WSD. With respect to Kosoburd teaching a sinusoidal profile, Kosoburd is not solely disclosed for a sinusoidal profile (like in column 13 lines 12-38 where a sinusoidal and triangular profile are present) with a suppression of orders present in column 12 lines 49-58. Examiner notes that these paragraphs were not cited in the prior rejection as said suppression and profile details were not required by the limitation Kosoburd was relied upon to teach. While examiner does agree that the cited portion of Kosoburd does teach a trapezoidal profile, it is unclear how a trapezoidal profile will eliminate suppressed orders within Choi as it is understood that a trapezoidal order can provide a suppressed order as per the geometry of said order. As Kosoburd is only used to teach in an efficiency and not a suppressed order, and as it is not apparent that Kosoburd teaches away from a suppressed orders, Kosoburd is still relied upon to teach the presented limitations regarding efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 31, 32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub No.: 2017/0209259) in view of Kosoburd (US Patent No.: 5,760,871) and Morris (US Pub No.: 2006/0055883).
Regarding claim 31, Choi (US Pub No.: 2017/0209259) discloses a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) comprising at least one diffractive surface (being the surface of the lens in figure 1) including a plurality of discrete, adjacent, diffractive, concentric Fresnel zones (Fresnel zones disclosed in [0021], Fresnel zones on lens surface), wherein said diffractive surface produces an asymmetrical distribution of energy flux over an odd number of more than three consecutive diffractive orders (multiple orders disclosed in [0022] with order suppression disclosed here. Difference of efficiencies would lead to a difference in energy flux); said odd number of more than three consecutive diffractive orders include vision-producing diffractive orders (diffractive orders to produce range of vision in [0006]) comprising a lowest of said more than three consecutive diffractive orders providing a far focus of said IOL (present in the abstract, where a near focus, distance focus, and immediate focus are claimed, with order details for a near, far, and intermediate vision claimed in claim 1 of Choi. [0012]-[0013] also discloses three diffractive orders with [0027] disclosing a five order embodiment), a highest of said more than three consecutive diffractive orders providing a near focus of said IOL, and a refractive 0th order, providing a first intermediate focus of said IOL (present in the abstract, where a near focus, distance focus, and immediate focus are claimed, with order details for a near, far, and intermediate vision claimed in claim 1 of Choi); said concentric Fresnel zones comprise a central first zone having a repetitive pattern of a first diffractive profile (the diffractive steps 103, defined in [0016], are shown to be repetitive in figure 1); and said odd number of more than three consecutive diffractive orders produced by said first zone comprise, in addition to said vision-producing orders, suppressed orders consisting of a first suppressed order (in the embodiment in [0022] and figures 3-8, the +1 order is suppressed. Odd number of orders disclosed in [0012]-[0013] and [0027]).
Choi in does not teach an efficiency of greater than 90% in said more than three diffractive orders.
Instead, Kosoburd teaching an efficiency of greater than 90% in said more than three diffractive orders (as per column 11 lines 65-67 into column 12 lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface topography details of Kosoburd into Choi and Ando as the surface topography is taken to be efficient as per column 11 lines 65-67 to column 12 lines 1-7.
From here, Choi in view of Kosoburd does not specifically teach that the refractive 0th order is centered among said odd number of more than three consecutive diffractive orders
Instead, Morris (US Pub No.: 2006/0055883) teaches that the refractive 0th order is centered among said odd number of more than three consecutive diffractive orders (shown in figure 6A, where the 0 order is between a +1 and -1 order, where said orders defined are an odd number of orders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the order placement of Morris into the combination involving Choi for the purpose of providing an arrangement wherein the energy at each order will be equal (as per [0069]) which will allow for a 0 order to produce a distance image (as per [0060]), thereby allowing for a greater range of vision to be provided for by the lens.
Regarding claim 32, Choi in view of Kosoburd and Morris teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 31, wherein Choi discloses said first diffractive profile is asymmetrical (the first diffractive profile, being the centermost part of figure 1, is a different size than the surrounding diffractive zones. As such, the first profile is asymmetrical with respect to the other profiles).
Regarding claim 35, Choi in view of Kosoburd and Morris teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 31, wherein Choi discloses said diffractive surface comprises diffractive steps (shown in figure 1 with the steps being parts 103).
Claim(s) 33-34, and 36-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub No.: 2017/0209259) in view of Kosoburd (US Patent No.: 5,760,871), Morris (US Pub No.: 2006/0055883) and Ando (US Pub No.: 2019/0041664).
Regarding claim 33, in view of Kosoburd and Morris teach the he multifocal IOL according to claim 31. However, Choi, Kosoburd and Morris do not teach an instance wherein said first diffractive profile has an asymmetrical double-peaked geometry.
Instead, Ando teaches an instance wherein said first diffractive profile has an asymmetrical double-peaked geometry (shown in figure 4, wherein the first and second zone sequence form multiple peaks in the first diffractive zone of the standard profile). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 34, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 33, wherein Ando teaches that said second diffractive profile is characterized by a near-symmetrical local diffractive surface topography (being zone sequence 2 in figure 4, where the distribution of the zones are symmetrical about both an X and Y axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 36, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 35. However, Choi does not teach wherein said diffractive steps are partially inside and partially outside a base curvature of the IOL.
Instead, Kosoburd teaches wherein said diffractive steps are partially inside and partially outside a base curvature of the IOL (the steps are inside and outside a base curvature in figure 6 of Kosoburd, wherein the curvature is about line 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface topography details of Kosoburd into Choi and Ando as the surface topography is efficient as per column 11 lines 65-67 to column 12 lines 1-7.
Regarding claim 37, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 35, wherein Kosoburd teaches a thickness of the IOL is variable and a curvature of the IOL is maintained among said steps (the thickness of the lens in figure 6 changes as the curvature is constant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface topography details of Kosoburd into Choi and Ando as the surface topography is efficient as per column 11 lines 65-67 to column 12 lines 1-7.
Regarding claim 38, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 35, wherein Kosoburd teaches a thickness of the IOL is variable (in figure 6 of Kosoburd). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface topography details of Kosoburd into Choi and Ando as the surface topography is taken to be efficient as per column 11 lines 65-67 to column 12 lines 1-7.
From here, Ando teaches that a curvature of the IOL is variable among said steps (in figure 4, as the steps of Ando appear at irregular spacing intervals, the curvature of the steps of Ando is taken to be variable when placed about the thickness of Kosoburd). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 40, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 31, wherein said efficiency is at least 93% (as per column 11 lines 65-67 into column 12 lines 1-7. As Kosoburd teaches an efficiency of over 90%, this limitation is taken to teach 93%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the surface topography details of Kosoburd into Choi and Ando as the surface topography is taken to be efficient as per column 11 lines 65-67 to column 12 lines 1-7.
Regarding claim 41, Choi Kosoburd, and Morris teach the multifocal IOL of claim 31. However, Choi, Kosoburd, and Morris do not teach an instance wherein said Fresnel zones further comprise a second zone, disposed separately and peripherally to a central first zone, having a repetitive pattern of a second diffractive profile. Instead, Ando (US Pub No.: 2019/0041664) would teach an instance wherein said Fresnel zones further comprise a second zone, disposed separately and peripherally to a central first zone, having a repetitive pattern of a second diffractive profile (being the first and second zone sequence in figure 4, wherein the zones will have a Fresnel pitch as per [0064]. The centermost portion of zone sequence 1 is a central first zone, with the second zone sequence portion that extends outward with respect to the central zone in the standard profile can be defined as a second zone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 42, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL of claim 41, wherein said more than three orders produced by said second zone comprise, in addition to said vision-producing orders, said first suppressed order (it is argued that the suppressed order of Choi could be implemented within across both zone sequences of Ando with predictable results. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing a broader range of vision as per [0013] of Choi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 43, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL of claim 42, wherein Choi teaches that said more than three orders further comprise one or more second suppressed orders (at least one diffractive order is suppressed as per [0013]).
Regarding claim 44, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 43, wherein Choi discloses that said energy flux, of said vision-producing orders in said more than three consecutive orders produced by said second zone, declines from the lowest diffractive order to the highest diffractive order (as a flux would directly relate to the optical power of the lens at an order, providing for a near, intermediate, or far vision, and as the lens of choi provides a near, intermediate, and distance focus in [0006], Choi can teach wherein the flux declines from a lowest diffractive order to a highest diffractive order when a low diffractive order corresponds to a far vision and a high diffractive order corresponds to a far diffractive order).
Regarding claim 45, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 41, wherein Ando teaches that said second diffractive profile is characterized by a near-symmetrical local diffractive surface topography (being zone sequence 2 in figure 4, where the distribution of the zones is taken to be symmetrical about both an X and Y axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 46, Choi in view of Kosoburd, Morris and Ando teach the multifocal IOL according to claim 41, wherein a height of a diffractive surface topography of said second zone is maintained constant when advancing radially outwards in respect to the center height of the IOL (in zone sequence 2 in figure 4, as the zones are taken to be distributed equally across zone 2, with the mid position height is the same throughout the lens as per [0129], the height remains constant throughout the lens when going radially outwards). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of sequences of Ando into Choi for the purpose of providing multiple zones that can adjust the focal points to provide a greater quality of vision (plurality of zones present in [0005]-[0006] with a quality of vision enhancement to [0007]-[0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Treushnikov (US Pub No.: 2009/0240328) discloses a multifocal intraocular lens in the abstract and details with respect to a light flux in [0047]. Choi (US Patent No.: 10,675,146) discloses an ophthalmic lens in the abstract with multiple orders in column 3 lines 27-64.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached on (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights