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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on April 22, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Examiner has not considered Foreign Doc #2, NPL Docs #5, #15 for failing to provide a copy under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the USC 102 rejection of Lam. Specifically, Lams optical elements/features are also as is now claimed. Just like Applicant’s rings (1101…1105, 1110…1116) the optical elements/features (131-137) of Lam are increased power rings within the central/peripheral zones.
Applicant’s remarks state an updated Figure 10 was provided, such updated Figure 10 does not appear to have been filed.
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the USC 112(b) rejection, unless otherwise noted below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 13 includes figures which are not appropriate for the specification (37 CFR 1.58(a)). Such figures appear to be reflected in Figures 5A, 5B. Examiner suggests deleting the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: peripheral optic zone (1020) (Spec. page 18, line 16).
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8, 17 recite what appear to be claim limitations within parentheses, however such parentheticals appear to remove the limitations from being positively recited. Additionally, parentheses are customarily used for reference numerals (MPEP 608.01(m)). Examiner will ignore the features within the parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
a) one or more optical element or features…configured to induce..in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-42 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.
As to claims 1 and 22, the claims recite “the one or more optical elements or features being distinct from the plurality of myopic defocus zones” which appears to be prohibited new matter. Specifically, Applicant’s citation for support for the amendment does not discuss any distinction between any optical elements/features and myopic defocus zones. Examiner requests Applicant to specifically point out what elements/features are distinct from what myopic defocus zones.
Claims 2-21, 23-42 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 22.
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 1-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 22, the claims recite “increase an average peripheral blur anisotropy value” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Increase the average peripheral blur relative to what? With/without wearing the ophthalmic lens? The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes an increased average appears based on a relative/arbitrary baseline. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art has the plurality of myopic defocus zones introducing the ADD powers, such functions are necessarily present.
As to claims 1, 22, the claims recite “the one or more optical elements or features being distinct from the plurality of myopic defocus zones” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what constitutes the distinctness appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Applicant’s specification makes no particular distinction between the myopic defocus zones and any optical elements/features. Particularly, Applicant’s specification appears to suggest the opposite, the myopic defocus zones are the optical elements/features - i.e. the myopic defocus zones (1101…1105, 1110-1116) are optical elements/features (ADD powers). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the art teaches such ADD power zones, such limitations are met.
Claims 2-21, 23-42 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 22.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “said predetermined ADD power…increases with increased radial distance from lens center up to a radius of at least 4mm” which appears to recite narrow and broad ranges (MPEP 2173.05(c)). Specifically “from a lens center up to a radius” equates to > 0mm, and “of at least 4mm” equates to ≥ 4mm, which appears to be competing ranges while also appearing to be a range of radii 0mm to infinity (∞), however the zone is already defined within an “outer peripheral edge”. The metes and bounds are unclear since what radial distance over which the ADD power increases appears infinite, however the lens is not. Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art ADD power increases over any range above 0mm, the limitation is met.
As to claims 17, 38, the claims recite “at least about 3.87mm” which is a broad range and narrow range (MPEP 2173.05(c)). For example, “at least” provides for the range of values above a lower bound, while “about” creates a range around a value. The metes and bounds are unclear since “about 3.87mm” includes values above 3.87mm, and “at least” creates a range above that. Examiner will understand the claim as “at least 3.87mm”.
As to claims 1, 22, the claim limitations “optical element or features…configured to induce a predetermined peripheral blur orientation…or increase an average peripheral blur anisotropy” invokes 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.
Applicant’s specification does not clearly link any optical elements or features to perform such function.
Therefore, the claim is 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 repeats the limitations of claim 3 from which it depends via claims 11, 6, 5, 4. Thus claim 12 fails to further limit the invention of claim 11.
Claim 42 repeats the limitations of claim 32 from which it depends via claims 33-41. Thus claim 42 fails to further limit the invention of claim 41.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Lam et al. (US 2022/0404639 - Lam; of record).
As to claim 1, Lam teaches an ophthalmic lens for at least one of slowing or preventing the progression of myopia (Lam Fig. 1; para. [0002]), comprising
a lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 120), and a shape defined by a lens outer peripheral edge (Lam Fig. 1 - 1);
an optic zone surrounding said lens center and having an optic zone outer periphery (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…127; 131, 132,…137), the optic zone further comprising a central optic zone surrounding the lens center and defined by a central optic zone radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…; 131, 132…) and a peripheral zone surrounding the central optic zone and extending to the optic zone outer periphery (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…; 131, 132…);
a plurality of myopic defocus zones each positioned at a predetermined radial distance from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…137; para. [0052]), and each introducing a predetermined ADD power (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16; para. [0044], [0054]-[0056]), where the predetermined ADD power for the plurality of myopic defocus zones increases with increased radial distance from lens center up to radius of at least 4mm (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16; para. [0034], [0035], [0048], [0052] - as discussed, includes 2-10 defocusing zones of increasing power, and/or 4-40 alternating zones, the zone width being 0.25mm));
and one or more optical elements or features in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16, 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0044], [0054]), the one or more optical elements or features being distinct from the plurality of myopic defocus zones (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16, 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0044], [0054]), the one or more optical elements or features configured to induce a predetermined peripheral blur orientation at a retinal plane of a wearer or increase an average peripheral blur anisotropy value at the retinal plane (Lam Fig. 5 - 58, 57, 56, 54; para. [0062]);
wherein at least one first myopic zone is positioned within the central optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 131), and at least two myopic defocus zones are positioned in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…).
As to claim 2, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lam further teaches the central optic zone radius is between 4 and 5mm (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121…; 131, 132…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 3 , Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lam further teaches the at least one myopic defocus zone positioned within the central optic zone is located at radial distance greater than 1.2mm from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 4, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Lam further teaches the at least one myopic defocus zone in the central optic zone has an ADD power of at least 1.5D (Lam para. [0054]).
As to claim 5, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lam further teaches the at least two myopic defocus zones positioned in the peripheral optic zone are located at radial distances of about 2.5mm and 3.0mm respectively from lens center (Lam para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 6, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Lam further teaches the at least two myopic defocus zones in the peripheral optic zone have ADD powers of about 3.0D and 4.0D respectively (Lam para. [0044], [0045]).
As to claim 7, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Lam further teaches at least two additional myopic defocus zone positioned in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 8, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Lam further teaches on of the at least two additional myopic defocus zones is positioned at a radial distance of at least 3.75mm from lens center, and one of the at least two additional myopic defocus zones is positioned at a radial distance of at least 4.5mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052] - as discussed, the defocusing zones have 0.25mm width and there can be up to 20 (half the total zones of 40), thus such 4th and 5th zones can be chosen to be positioned at least 3.75mm and 4.5mm from center).
As to claim 9, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Lam further teaches said fourth myopic defocus zone has an ADD power of at least 5D (Lam para. [0044], [0045], Table 1).
As to claim 10, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Lam further teaches said fifth myopic defocus zone has an ADD power of at least 6D (Lam para. [0044], [0045], Table 1).
As to claim 11, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Lam further teaches each of the myopic defocus zones in the central and peripheral optic zones comprises a circumferential annular zone of the optic zone that is radially spaced from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), each annular zone having an inner radius and an outer radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), such that light passing through each annular zone forms a myopic defocus as a ring focus around the optical axis rather than as a point focus on the optical axis (Lam Fig. 5 - 51, 54, 57; para. [0062]).
As to claim 12, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Lam further teaches the at least one myopic defocus zone positioned within the central optic zone is located at radial distance greater than 1.2mm from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 13, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Lam further teaches the at least one myopic defocus zone in the central optic zone has an ADD power of at least 3D (Lam Fig. 1; para. [0044], [0045], [0054], Table 1).
As to claim 14, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Lam further teaches the at least two myopic defocus zones positioned in the peripheral optic zone are located at radial distances of at least 2.56mm and 3.22mm respectively from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 15, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Lam further teaches the at least two myopic defocus zones in the peripheral optic zone have ADD powers of about 8D and 9.8D respectively (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045] - stepwise increment being as high as 1.5D with the first defocus zone (131) having an ADD up to of 4.0D, as such the values of 8 and 9.8D are included in the ADD ranges discussed by Lam (MPEP 2131.01)).
As to claim 16, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Lam further teaches at least two additional myopic defocus zone positioned in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 17, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Lam further teaches one of the at least two additional myopic defocus zones is positioned at a radial distance of at least about 3.87mm from lens center, and one of the at least two additional myopic defocus zones is positioned at a radial distance of at least 4.53 mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 18, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Lam further teaches wherein said fourth and fifth myopic defocus zones have and ADD power of at least 12D (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045] - stepwise increment being as high as 1.5D with the first defocus zone (131) having an ADD up to of 4.0D, as such the value of 12D is included in the ADD ranges discussed by Lam (MPEP 2131.01)).
As to claim 19, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Lam further teaches a sixth myopic defocus zone positioned at least partially within the central optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…).
As to claim 20, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19, and Lam further teaches the sixth myopic defocus zone positioned at least partially within the central optic zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least 1.91mm from lens center and has an ADD power of at least 5.9D (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 21, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lam further teaches each of the myopic defocus zones in the central and peripheral optic zones comprises a circumferential annular zone of the optic zone that is radially spaced from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), each annular zone having an inner radius and an outer radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), such that light passing through each annular zone forms a myopic defocus as a ring focus around the optical axis rather than as a point focus on the optical axis (Lam Fig. 5 - 51, 54, 57; para. [0062]).
As to claim 22, Lam teaches an ophthalmic lens for at least one of slowing or preventing the progression of myopia (Lam Fig. 1; para. [0002]), comprising
a lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 120), and a shape defined by a lens outer peripheral edge (Lam Fig. 1 - 1);
an optic zone surrounding said lens center and having an optic zone outer periphery (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…127; 131, 132,…137), the optic zone further comprising a central optic zone surrounding the lens center and defined by a central optic zone radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…; 131, 132…) and a peripheral zone surrounding the central optic zone and extending to the optic zone outer periphery (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121,…; 131, 132…);
and one or more optical elements or features in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16, 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0044], [0054]), configured to induce a predetermined peripheral blur orientation at a retinal plane of a wearer or increase an average peripheral blur anisotropy value at the retinal plane (Lam Fig. 5 - 58, 57, 56, 54; para. [0062]);
a plurality of myopic defocus zones (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), the plurality of myopic defocus zones being distinct from the one or more optical elements or features (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16, 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0044], [0054]), each of the plurality of myopic defocus zones positioned at a predetermined radial distance from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…137; para. [0052]), and each introducing a predetermined ADD power (Lam Fig. 1 - 15, 16; para. [0044], [0054]-[0056]),
wherein a first myopic defocus zone and a second myopic defocus zone, each positioned in the peripheral optic zone and each have a larger ADD power than a third myopic defocus zone positioned within the central optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0034], [0035], [0044], [0045], [0048]).
As to claim 23, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Lam further teaches the central optic zone radius is between 4 and 5mm (Lam Fig. 1 - 120, 121…; 131, 132…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 24, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Lam further teaches the third myopic defocus zone positioned within the central optic zone is located at a radial distance greater than 1.2mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 25, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 24, and Lam further teaches the third myopic defocus zone in the central optic zone has an ADD power of at least 1.5D (Lam para. [0054])
As to claim 26, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 25, and Lam further teaches the first and second myopic defocus zones positioned in the peripheral optic zone are located at radial distances of about 2.5mm and 3.0mm respectively from lens center (Lam para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 27, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 26, and Lam further teaches the first and second myopic defocus zones in the peripheral optic zone have ADD powers of about 3.0 and 4.0 respectively (Lam para. [0044], [0045]).
As to claim 28, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Lam further teaches a fourth and a fifth myopic defocus zone positioned in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 29, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 28, and Lam further teaches said fourth myopic defocus zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least 3.75mm from lens center, and said fifth myopic defocus zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least 4.5mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052] - as discussed, the defocusing zones have 0.25mm width and there can be up to 20 (half the total zones of 40), thus such 4th and 5th zones can be chosen to be positioned at least 3.75mm and 4.5mm from center).
As to claim 30, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 29, and Lam further teaches said fourth myopic defocus zone has an ADD power of at least 5D (Lam para. [0044], [0045], Table 1).
As to claim 31, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 30, and Lam further teaches said fifth myopic defocus zone has an ADD power of at least 6D (Lam para. [0044], [0045], Table 1).
As to claim 32, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Lam further teaches each of the myopic defocus zones in the central and peripheral optic zones comprises a circumferential annular zone of the optic zone that is radially spaced from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), each annular zone having an inner radius and an outer radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), such that light passing through each annular zone forms a myopic defocus as a ring focus around the optical axis rather than as a point focus on the optical axis (Lam Fig. 5 - 51, 54, 57; para. [0062]).
As to claim 33, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 32, and Lam further teaches the at least one myopic defocus zone positioned within the central optic zone is located at a radial distance of greater than 1.2mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131, 132…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 34, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 33, and Lam further teaches the third one myopic defocus zone in the central optic zone has an ADD power of at least 3D (Lam Fig. 1; para. [0044], [0045], [0054], Table 1).
As to claim 35, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 34, and Lam further teaches the at least first and second myopic defocus zones positioned in the peripheral optic zone are located at radial distances of at least 2.56mm and 3.22mm respectively from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0052], [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 36, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 35, and Lam further teaches the first and second myopic defocus zones in the peripheral optic zone have ADD powers of about 8D and 9.8D respectively (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045] - stepwise increment being as high as 1.5D with the first defocus zone (131) having an ADD up to of 4.0D, as such the values of 8 and 9.8D are included in the ADD ranges discussed by Lam (MPEP 2131.01)).
As to claim 37, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 36, and Lam further teaches a fourth and a fifth myopic defocus zone positioned in the peripheral optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048]).
As to claim 38, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 37, and Lam further teaches said fourth myopic defocus zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least about 3.87mm from lens center, and said fifth myopic defocus zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least 4.53mm from lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 134, 135…; para. [0035], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 39, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 38, and Lam further teaches wherein said fourth and fifth myopic defocus zones have and ADD power of at least 12D (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045] - stepwise increment being as high as 1.5D with the first defocus zone (131) having an ADD up to of 4.0D, as such the value of 12D is included in the ADD ranges discussed by Lam (MPEP 2131.01)).
As to claim 40, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 39, and Lam further teaches a second myopic defocus zone positioned at least partially within the central optic zone (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…).
As to claim 41, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 40, and Lam further teaches a sixth myopic defocus zone positioned at least partially within the central optic zone is positioned at a radial distance of at least 1.91mm from lens center and has an ADD power of at least 5.9D (Lam Fig. 1 - 132, 133…; para. [0035], [0044], [0045], [0048], [0052]).
As to claim 42, Lam teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 41, and Lam further teaches each of the myopic defocus zones in the central and peripheral optic zones comprises a circumferential annular zone of the optic zone that is radially spaced from the lens center (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), each annular zone having an inner radius and an outer radius (Lam Fig. 1 - 131…137), such that light passing through each annular zone forms myopic defocus as a ring focus around the optical axis rather than as a point focus on the optical axis (Lam Fig. 5 - 51, 54, 57; para. [0062]).
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights