DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 1, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 12, paragraph [0075], “FIGS. 16-19” should be deleted and “FIGS. 16A -19D” should be inserted.
On page 12, paragraph [0076], “FIGS. 20-22” should be deleted and “FIGS. 20A -22C” should be inserted.
On page 12, paragraph [0077], “FIGS. 23-26” should be deleted and “FIGS. 23A -26” should be inserted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 9-12 and 16, the phrases “e.g.,” and “for example” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 5 and 11-14, the phrase “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase perform the function or not.
With regard to dependent claims 3, 6, 8, 18 and 19, claims 3, 6, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 and therefore inherit all of the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
Although claim 4 appears to be written as a dependent claim, it fails to positively recite a claim from which it depends. In an effort to provide compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted claim 4 as depending from claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the amplitude modulation elements” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the aperture” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Although claim 17 appears to be written as a dependent claim, it fails to positively recite a claim from which it depends. In an effort to provide compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted claim 17 as depending from claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the plurality of amplitude modulation elements” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 20 be amended to depend from claim 19 to properly establish antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0212583).
With regard to independent claim 1, although Wu teaches an ophthalmic lens (Figure 1 and page 1, paragraph [0012]) comprising: a[t] least one pattern or mask which blocks and/or attenuates light by amplitude modulation (page 1, paragraph [0001], wherein visible light is filtered out), Wu fails to explicitly teach wherein the amplitude modulation is at least one of binary or non-binary. Wu does teach that the light to be filtered at a preset percentage (page 2, paragraph [0015], lines 1-5) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the preset percentages, as taught by Wu, to have discrete values (i.e., binary) or as ranges (i.e., non-binary).
With regard to dependent claim 2, although Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Wu fails to explicitly teach such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation has multiple steps wherein zero amplitude means absorption or blocking of light and a value of one means that light may be transmitted through the lens without change and a value between zero and one means only a portion of the light is absorbed or blocked. Wu does teach an ophthalmic lens wherein the preset percentage of filtered light is in the range of 1% to 100% (page 2, paragraph [0015], lines 1-5 and paragraph [0019], lines 13-14), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the preset percentages, as taught by Wu, to have discrete values and assigned meaning in an effort to define and customize light passed through the lens.
With regard to dependent claim 3, although Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Wu fails to explicitly teach such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation has 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 steps. Again, Wu teaches an ophthalmic lens wherein the preset percentage of filtered light is in the range of 1% to 100% and having different strengths (page 2, paragraph [0015], lines 1-5 and paragraph [0019], lines 13-14), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the preset percentages, as taught by Wu, to have discrete values in an effort to define and customize light passed through the lens.
With regard to dependent claim 4, although Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim [1], Wu fails to explicitly teach such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation is continuous between zero and one. Wu does teach an ophthalmic lens wherein the filter area (Figure 1, element 13) may have a plurality of color rings (page 1, paragraph [0014], lines 1-6) wherein the color of the ring is customized to filter various percentages of light (page 2, paragraph [0015], lines 5-18), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the preset percentages, as taught by Wu, to have continuous filtering percentages to customize light passing through the lens.
With regard to dependent claim 5, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the ophthalmic lens system [is] one of a spectacle lens, a contact lens, a corneal onlay or inlay, an intraocular lens or a combination thereof (page 1, paragraph [0012]).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation pattern is symmetrical (page 1, paragraph [0014], lines 1-6, wherein the Wu teaches multiple concentric rings having variable filtering strengths).
With regard to dependent claim 8, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation pattern is asymmetrical (page 1, paragraph [0014], lines 5-6 and Figure 3, wherein the Wu teaches filtering areas positioned on a top part, on a bottom part, a left part or a right part).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation pattern is localized to one or more regions of the lens (Figure 1, element 13).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the amplitude modulation patterns [are] composed of shapes, concentric rings, in a form of a grid, in the form of a circular distribution, in the form of a hexagonal array, in the form of a spiral array, in the form of a rectangular array, in the form of a linear array, in the form of a non-linear array, and/or any other random or predetermined pattern (Figure 1, element 13, concentric rings).
With regard to dependent claim 11, although Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Wu fails to explicitly teach the amplitude modulation pattern forms a transmission that may be uniform or not uniform. However, it should be noted that light passing though the filter area (Figure 1, element 13), will inherently form a transmission pattern that with either be uniform or not uniform, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ophthalmic lens, as taught by Wu, to have a transmission pattern that is either uniform or not uniform.
With regard to dependent claim 12, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the pattern is incorporated into a plurality of spaced apart shapes that are distributed over at least a portion of the lens (page 1, paragraph [0014], lines 1-5 and Figure 1, element 131, wherein the filter area can have a plurality of rings).
With regard to dependent claim 15, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein amplitude modulation elements, as best understood by the examiner, are implemented across at least one of the entire lens or located within certain visual fields of a lens ( page 1, paragraph [0001], lines 2-3 and Figure 1, element 13, wherein the filter area is formed on the peripheral optical area).
With regard to dependent claim 17, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein the lens has a clear center zone (Figure 1, element 11).
With regard to dependent claim 19, Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an ophthalmic lens wherein a plurality of amplitude modulation elements are distributed across the lens (Figure 1, element 131, wherein the amplitude modulation elements are distributed across the peripheral optical area).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0212583) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blum et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0221674).
With regard to dependent claim 6, although Wu teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Wu fails to explicitly teach the ophthalmic lens as part of an ophthalmic lens system. In a related endeavor, Blum et al teaches an ophthalmic lens for attenuating light utilized in an optical system (page 4, paragraph [0094], lines 1-2), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the ophthalmic lens, as taught by Wu, with the ophthalmic lens in an optical system, as taught by Blum et al, to achieve a desired light blocking ophthalmic lens system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Although the prior art teaches an ophthalmic lens comprising: a least one pattern or mask which blocks and/or attenuates light by amplitude modulation; wherein the amplitude modulation is at least one of binary or non-binary, the prior art fails to teach such an ophthalmic lens wherein: wherein a modulation transfer function (MTF) of the lens over a fixed portion or over the amplitude modulating shape [is] reduced by 10% or more, 20% or more, or 30% or more, as claimed in dependent claim 13; wherein an MTF [is] selectively reduced by 10% or more, 20% or more, or 30% or more at low, medium or high spatial frequencies; or across one or more spatial frequencies in a uniform manner; or selectively attenuated; or boosted for one or more spatial frequencies, as claimed in dependent claim 14; the ophthalmic lens system is implemented within only certain portions of [an] aperture of an overall lens system, as claimed in dependent claim 16; the center zone contains amplitude modulation patterns, as claimed in dependent claim 18; or the plurality of amplitude modulation elements are patterned in an array or randomly distributed, as claimed in dependent claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al (U.S. Patent Publication 20118/0095296), Hones et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0165244), Chalberg et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0011602) and Bakaraju et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0176399) all teach light attenuating ophthalmic lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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 L 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
04 December 2025