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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 contains a typo “optical element” should be “optical elements”.
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 8-9, 11, 13, and 17 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 8-9, 11, and 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The method according to claim 13". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact examination claim 17 will be interpreted to be dependent on independent method claim 14.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20170184875 A1 (Newman).
Regarding claim 1:
Newman teaches a lens element adapted to a wearer and intended to be worn in front of an eye of the wearer (Fig. 5 showing lens element [10] worn in front of an eye.), the lens element comprising:
- a refraction area having a refractive power based on a prescribed refractive power Px for said eye of the wearer and comprising at least a central zone, (Fig. 2 and Para. [0009] the lens has a refractive power in an area comprising at least a central zone.)
- a plurality of optical elements having an optical function of not focusing an image on the retina of the eye of the wearer (Fig. 2 and Para. [0010], Optical elements [2] have a refractive power such that they focus an image on a position other than a retina of the eye.),
wherein the optical elements are organized based at least on the prescribed refractive power Px and the functional asymmetries over the visual field of the wearer. (Para. [0050], the refractive power is based on a prescription of the wearer.)
Regarding claim 12:
Newman teaches the lens element according to claim 1,
wherein the refractive area is formed as the area other than the areas formed as the plurality of optical elements. (See abstract, “Near the central part of the lens, the second refraction areas form a plurality of independent island-shaped areas, and the first refraction areas form the areas beyond the areas of the second refraction areas.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Newman teaches the lens element according to claim 1,
wherein at least part of, for example all of, the optical elements are located on the front surface of the lens element. (Fig. 3 shows the optical elements [2] on the front side [11] of the lens [10])
Regarding claim 14:
Newman teaches a method for determining a lens element adapted to a wearer and intended to be worn in front of an eye of the wearer (Fig. 5 showing lens element [10] worn in front of an eye.), the optical lens comprising;
- a refraction area having a refractive power based on a prescribed refractive power Px for said eye of the wearer and comprising at least a central zone, (Fig. 2 and Para. [0009] the lens has a refractive power in an area comprising at least a central zone.)
- a plurality of optical elements having an optical function of not focusing an image on the retina of the eye of the wearer, (Fig. 2 and Para. [0010], Optical elements [2] have a refractive power such that they focus an image on a position other than a retina of the eye.)
wherein the method comprises:
- obtaining wearer's data, the wearer's data comprising at least prescription data relating to the prescribed refractive power Px,
- obtaining asymmetries data, the asymmetries data relating to the wearer's functional asymmetries over the visual field,
- optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements based on the wearer's data and asymmetries data. (Para. [0050], the refractive power is based on a prescription of the wearer which must be obtained to provide the wearer’s data.)
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.
Claims 2,5-9, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170184875 A1 (Newman) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20240151989 A1 (Zhou et al.).
Regarding claim 2:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein the density and/or optical power of the optical element is based at least on the prescribed refractive power Px and the functional asymmetries over the visual field of the eye of the wearer.
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein the density and/or optical power of the optical element is based at least on the prescribed refractive power Px and the functional asymmetries over the visual field of the eye of the wearer. (Para. [0206]-[0220], Discusses the optimization and personalization of the density and optical power of the microlenses based on the anatomical, visual, or optical measurements of the wearers eye including functional asymmetries.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the density and/or optical power of the optical element based at least on the prescribed refractive power Px and the functional asymmetries over the visual field of the eye of the wearer as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of customizing the lens element for the wearer.
Regarding claim 5:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein the optical elements are organized in a plurality of concentric rings centered on the central zone.
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein the optical elements are organized in a plurality of concentric rings centered on the central zone. (See fig. 14B, 15B or 19A. For example fig. 14B shows optical elements [1410] are a plurality of concentric rings centered on a central zone.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements organized in a plurality of concentric rings centered on the central zone. as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 6:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein the optical elements are organized in a plurality of radial segments centered on the central zone.
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein the optical elements are organized in a plurality of radial segments centered on the central zone. (Fig. 14C shows optical elements [1411] as radial segments centered on the central zone. See also figs. 15C and 19A)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements organized in a plurality of radial segments centered on the central zone as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 7:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
However Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein the optical elements are contiguous.
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein the optical elements are contiguous. (See for example fig. 14A showing that the lens elements [1410] and [1411] are contiguous.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements be contiguous as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 8:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
However Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein at least one, for example more than 50%, of the optical elements are non-spherical microlenses. (The optical elements of Newman are not microlenses.)
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein at least one, for example more than 50%, of the optical elements are non-spherical microlenses. (Fig. 16A shows the optical elements are toric microlenses [1610] which are non-spherical.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements be non-spherical microlenses as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 9:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
However Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein at least one, for example more than 50%, of the optical elements are diffractive microlenses.
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein at least one, for example more than 50%, of the optical elements are diffractive microlenses. (Fig. 17A and Para. [0173], The lens elements [1710] are multifocal microlenses that may be Fresnel lenses or multiple concentric diffractive ring lenses.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements be diffractive microlenses as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 11:
Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1,
However Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein the optical elements have a contour shape being inscribable in a circle having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.2 mm, for example greater than or equal to 0.4 mm, for example greater than or equal to 0.6 mm, and smaller than or equal to 2.0 mm, for example smaller than 1.0 mm. (Newman teaches that the optical elements are larger than 2.0 mm in diameter.)
Zhou teaches a lens element
wherein the optical elements have a contour shape being inscribable in a circle having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.2 mm, for example greater than or equal to 0.4 mm, for example greater than or equal to 0.6 mm, and smaller than or equal to 2.0 mm, for example smaller than 1.0 mm. (Para. [0125] teaches that the lens element are 0.8 to 2.0 mm in diameter.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical elements have a contour shape being inscribable in a circle having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.8 mm and smaller than or equal to 2.0 mm as taught by Zhou in the lens element of Newman for the purpose of slowing down myopia progression.
Regarding claim 15:
Newman discloses the method according to claim 14
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements.
Zhou teaches a method
wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements. (Para. [0206]-[0220], Discusses the optimization and personalization of the density and optical power of the microlenses based on the anatomical, visual, or optical measurements of the wearers eye including functional asymmetries.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements as taught by Zhou in the method of Newman for the purpose of customizing the lens element for the wearer.
Regarding claim 16:
Newman discloses the method according to claim 15
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements in the lower and right quadrants of the lens elements.
Zhou teaches a method
wherein optimizing at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements in the lower and right quadrants of the lens elements. (See rejection for claim 15. Zhou teaches determining the density and/or optical power of the optical element across the entire lens element which includes the lower and right quadrants.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimize at least one parameter of the optical elements comprises determining the density and/or optical power of the optical elements in the lower and right quadrants of the lens elements as taught by Zhou in the method of Newman for the purpose of customizing the lens element for the wearer.
Regarding claim 17:
Newman discloses the method according to claim 14,
however Newman fails to teach or suggest
further comprising obtaining sensitivity data relating at least to the visual sensitivity of the wearer throughout the whole vision field, and wherein the at least one parameter of the optical elements is optimized considering said sensitivity data.
Zhou teaches a method
further comprising obtaining sensitivity data relating at least to the visual sensitivity of the wearer throughout the whole vision field, and wherein the at least one parameter of the optical elements is optimized considering said sensitivity data. (Para. [206], the data obtained includes visual sensitivity of the wearer throughout the whole vision field and is used to optimize the parameters of the optical elements.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain sensitivity data relating at least to the visual sensitivity of the wearer throughout the whole vision field, and wherein the at least one parameter of the optical elements is optimized considering said sensitivity data as taught by Zhou in the method of Newman for the purpose of customizing the lens element for the wearer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 3:
Although Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1
Neither Newman nor Zhou teaches or suggests
wherein the lens element is divided in five complementary zones, the central zone and four quadrants at 45° and wherein the density of optical elements is lower in the lower and left quadrants than in the higher and right quadrant. (Neither teaches or suggest that different quadrants should have differing densities of the optical elements.)
Regarding claim 4:
Although Newman discloses the lens element according to claim 1
Neither Newman nor Zhou teaches or suggests
wherein the lens element is divided in five complementary zones, the central zone and four quadrants at 45°, and wherein the optical power of the lens elements is higher in the lower and left quadrants than in the higher and right quadrant. (Neither teaches or suggest that different quadrants should have differing optical powers of the optical elements.)
Regarding claim 10:
Although Newman in combination with Zhou teaches lens element according to claim 9,
neither Newman nor Zhou teaches or suggests
wherein the diffractive microlenses are Pi-Fresnel microlenses. (Zhou teaches the use of Fresnel lenses for the microlenses but is silent on if they are Pi-Fresnel microlenses.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.
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)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872