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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on June 29, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
USC 101 Issues
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 7 do no overcome the USC 101 rejections. The amended subject matter provided additional data which does not resolve the issues outlined in the 2019 PEG analysis.
USC 103 Issues
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to Carimalo in view of Tyrin, Examiner is not persuaded.
As an initial point, Applicant’s remarks in view of the claim language “an addition power of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the peripheral vision zones” is no longer definite. Specifically, Applicant’s remarks appear to contradict Applicant’s specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
112
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As beset as Examiner understands, para. [0054] and para. [0056] do not identify peripheral portion (126) as part of central viewing zone (124). In fact, portion (126) is disclosed1 to surround central viewing zone (124), not part of it. Also, Applicant’s specification2 states central viewing zone (124) does not have any additional (ADD) power because it is for distance/far vision correction.
Even if portion (126) is part of (124), the claim is not so limited. Examiner reminds Applicant that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (MPEP 2111.01.II).
Furthermore, as per Applicant’s specification3, peripheral vision zones (132, 134) are part of (126). There, in the context of the claim and Applicant’s remarks how does (126) have a power less than (132, 134) when (132, 134) are part of (126)?
Lastly, the power structure of Applicant’s claim “an addition power of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the peripheral vision zones” and the art of Tyrin is the same whereby the temporal/nasal peripheral portions have ADD power relative to the central portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
712
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the art of Tyrin to be the same as Applicant’s claimed “an addition power of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the peripheral vision zones”.
Lastly, such language includes the central viewing zone having no (zero) additional (ADD) power while the peripheral vision zones have some (non-zero) ADD power. In other words a central viewing zone additional power of 0D is less than a non-zero ADD power of the peripheral vision zones.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In review of a claimed invention for eligibility under USC 101, the USPTO has provided the 2019 PEG analysis. Under such guidance claim 3 is not eligible for the following reasons:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Yes. The claim recites “a method for providing...”.
Pre-Step 2: Can the analysis be streamlined? When viewed as a whole, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident: No. Eligibility is not self-evident.
Step 2A. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon: Yes. The claim recites an Abstract Idea. Specifically, the claim recites the mathematic calculation and mathematical relationships of defining a spectacle lens surface.
Step 2A. Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application: No. Specifically, while there is a computer claimed, the computer merely serves as a support for the design data. The computer does nothing more than provide the surface data. As a whole the claim appears entirely directed to nonfunctional descriptive material (MPEP 2111.05 - However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer).
Additionally, the computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since such claim limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform/support the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There are no additional elements. As a whole, the claim is directed to a computer supporting (providing) spectacle lens design data which is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 does not resolve the USC 101 issues. While claim 4 purports to manufacture the spectacle lens based on the data, as per MPEP 2106.05(c) - Where a transformation is recited in a claim...The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 6 do not resolve the USC 101 issues. Claims 5-6 recite a computer program which does not survive Step 2A or Step 2B.
Claim 7 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium and the associated data stored on that medium. In other words, claim 7 is directed to data on a generic storage medium and thus fails the 2019 PEG guidance for reasons similar to claim 3 above (MPEP 2111.05.III).
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, 3-8 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, 3, 7, the claims recite “each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, the claims recite “an addition power region of the central viewing zone” which is unclear in light of Applicant’s specification and remarks such that what constitutes a “region” and/or a “zone” appear subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, Applicant’s specification considers the central viewing zone to be zone (124) which is then surrounded by peripheral region (126). Peripheral region (126) contains peripheral vision zones (132, 134). Applicant’s specification does not identify peripheral region (126) as being a part of the central viewing zone (124). Therefore, the metes and bounds are unclear because:
a) What an addition power region of the central viewing zone is appears arbitrarily defined as any region within or without the central viewing zone
b) What would be such addition power of such central viewing zone? Because as disclosed, the central viewing zone does not have addition power since the central viewing zone is for distance/far correction
c) If the addition power region of the central viewing zone is as suggested by Applicant to be (126), but (126) includes peripheral vision zones (132, 134) where (132, 134) have the addition power of the peripheral vision zones, then how is the addition power of (126) less than itself?
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the language such that so long as the central viewing zone has 0D and the peripheral vision zone has non-zero ADD power, such limitation is met since 0D is less than non-zero ADD diopters.
Claims 4-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 3.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “the addition power regions of the upper viewing zone and the lower viewing zone” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Carimalo Carimalo et al. (US 2008/0246914 - Carimalo; of record).
As to claim 8, Carimalo teaches a spectacle lens having a surface (Carimalo Fig. 1; Fig. 7), the spectacle lens comprising
a central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - central zone of the lens);
a lower viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - lower zone of the lens);
two peripheral vision zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - left/right zones of the lens);
an upper viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - upper zone of the lens);
wherein the surface includes a first corridor of low surface astigmatism along a vertical axis of the surface connecting the lower viewing zone and the upper viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis; para. [0075]), and a second corridor of low surface astigmatism along a horizontal axis of the surface connecting the two peripheral zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - x-axis; para. [0075]), the first corridor and the second corridor being configured such that each respective low surface astigmatism amounts to less than +0.25D (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075] - corridors being within isocylinder lines of +0.25D);
the first corridor of low surface astigmatism extends to a top of the spectacle lens (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis);
a region located between the upper viewing zone and one of the peripheral vision zones has a surface astigmatism higher than the low surface astigmatism of the first corridor and the second corridor (Carimalo Fig. 7 - isocylinder line of 0.5D).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
706
1204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
689
811
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the upper viewing zone and the lower viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 5, 6; see below), wherein the respective addition power regions are enclosed by a perimeter having a constant refractive power (Carimalo Figs. 5, 6; see below).
PNG
media_image7.png
621
1127
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Carimalo et al. (US 2008/0246914 - Carimalo; of record) in view of Tyrin et al. (US 2012/0019775 - Tyrin; of record).
As to claim 1, Carimalo teaches a spectacle lens having a surface (Carimalo Fig. 1; Fig. 7), the spectacle lens comprising
a central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - central zone of the lens);
a lower viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - lower zone of the lens);
two peripheral vision zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - left/right zones of the lens);
an upper viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - upper zone of the lens);
wherein the surface includes a first corridor of low surface astigmatism along a vertical axis of the surface connecting the lower viewing zone and the upper viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis; para. [0075]), and a second corridor of low surface astigmatism along a horizontal axis of the surface connecting the two peripheral zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - x-axis; para. [0075]), the first corridor and the second corridor being configured such that each respective low surface astigmatism amounts to less than +0.25D (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075] - corridors being within isocylinder lines of +0.25D);
the first corridor of low surface astigmatism extends to a top of the spectacle lens (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis);
a region located between the upper viewing zone and one of the peripheral vision zones has a surface astigmatism higher than the low surface astigmatism of the first corridor and the second corridor (Carimalo Fig. 7 - isocylinder line of 0.5D).
PNG
media_image4.png
631
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
706
1204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
689
811
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Carimalo does not specify an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones, the power regions enclosed by a perimeter having constant power.
In the same field of endeavor Tyrin teaches providing spectacle lenses having a central viewing zone (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 1; Fig. 8b - 2) and peripheral zones (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 2; Fig. 8b - 1) with an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones (Tyrin Fig. 8b - 2, 1; para. [0144]), the power regions enclosed by a perimeter having constant power (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 1, 2; Fig. 5; Fig. 8b - 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such power profile since, as taught by Tyrin, the higher additional power of the peripheral zones allows for relaxing the accommodation on the left and right sides when viewing text (Tyrin Fig. 8b; para. [0144]).
As to claims 3, 7, Carimalo teaches a method/CRM for providing, a design of a spectacle lens for the purpose of manufacturing the spectacle lens based on the design (Carimal Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7; para. [0023]-[0025]), the spectacle lens having
a central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - central zone of the lens);
a lower viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - lower zone of the lens);
two peripheral vision zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - left/right zones of the lens);
an upper viewing zone (Carimalo Figs. 1-3; Fig. 7 - upper zone of the lens);
wherein the surface includes a first corridor of low surface astigmatism along a vertical axis of the surface connecting the lower viewing zone and the upper viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis; para. [0075]), and a second corridor of low surface astigmatism along a horizontal axis of the surface connecting the two peripheral zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Carimalo Fig. 7 - x-axis; para. [0075]), the first corridor and the second corridor being configured such that each respective low surface astigmatism amounts to less than +0.25D (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075] - corridors being within isocylinder lines of +0.25D);
the first corridor of low surface astigmatism extends to a top of the spectacle lens (Carimalo Fig. 7 - y-axis);
a region located between the upper viewing zone and one of the peripheral vision zones has a surface astigmatism higher than the low surface astigmatism of the first corridor and the second corridor (Carimalo Fig. 7 - isocylinder line of 0.5D);
wherein the design of the spectacle lens is provided as data for processing at least one lens blank to produce the spectacle lens (Carimalo para. [0023]-[0025]);
wherein providing the surface of the spectacle lens with the first corridor of the low surface astigmatism (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075]; see above, vertical corridor) and the second corridor of the low surface astigmatism (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075]; see above, horizontal corridor) further comprises configuring the first corridor and the second corridor to provide plus power with the low surface astigmatism in four different direction (Carimalo Fig 7; para. [0075]; see above, vertical and horizontal corridors provide plus power with low surface astigmatism up, down, left, right).
Carimalo doesn’t specify a computer/computer readable medium and an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones, the power regions enclosed by a perimeter having constant power.
In the same field of endeavor Tyrin teaches computer/computer readable medium (Tyrin para. [0050], [0097]) and spectacle lenses having a central viewing zone (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 1; Fig. 8b - 2) and peripheral zones (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 2; Fig. 8b - 1) with an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones (Tyrin Fig. 8b - 2, 1; para. [0144]), the power regions enclosed by a perimeter having constant power (Tyrin Fig. 4 - 1, 2; Fig. 5; Fig. 8b - 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such power profile since, as taught by Tyrin, the higher additional power of the peripheral zones allows for relaxing the accommodation on the left and right sides when viewing text (Tyrin Fig. 8b; para. [0144]).
As to claims 4-6, Carimalo in view of Tyrin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Tyrin teaches computer programs and manufacturing the spectacle lens (Tyrin para. [0050], [0097]).
Claim 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varnas (US 2011/0037944 - Varnas; of record) in view of Carimalo et al. (US 2008/0246914 - Carimalo; of record).
As to claims 1, 3, 7, Varnas teaches a spectacle lens/method/computer having a surface (Varnas Figs. 27, 28; para. [0129], [0130], [0070]), the spectacle lens comprising
a central viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 27 - zone where VM, HM meet; see below);
a lower viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 27 - zone below HM, along VM; see below);
two peripheral vision zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 27 - left/right zones along HM; see below);
an upper viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 27 - zone above HM, along VM, see below);
PNG
media_image8.png
603
697
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the surface includes a first corridor of low surface astigmatism along a vertical axis of the surface connecting the lower viewing zone and the upper viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 28; para. [0130] - see below), and a second corridor of low surface astigmatism along a horizontal axis of the surface connecting the two peripheral vision zones left and right of the central viewing zone (Varnas Fig. 28; para. [0130] - see below), the first corridor and the second corridor being configured such that each respective low surface astigmatism amounts to less than +0.25D (Varnas Fig. 28 - contours, gradient graph);
PNG
media_image9.png
592
704
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein a region located between the upper viewing zone and one of the two peripheral vision zones has a surface astigmatism higher than the low surface astigmatism of the first corridor and the second corridor (Varnas Fig. 28 - see below);
PNG
media_image10.png
620
663
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein an addition power region of the central viewing zone has an addition power less than each of the addition power regions of the two peripheral vision zones (Varnas Fig. 27 - diopter gradient along HM; see below);
PNG
media_image11.png
600
667
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein the respective addition power regions are enclosed by a perimeter having a constant refractive power (Varnas Fig. 27 - diopter gradient, enclosed contour lines).
Varnas does not specify the first corridor (vertical corridor of < 0.25D) extends to a top of the spectacle lens.
In the same field of endeavor Carimalo teaches providing a spectacle lens with a vertical low astigmatism (< 0.25D) corridor extending to a top of the spectacle lens (Carimalo Fig. 7; para. [0075], [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such vertical corridor since, as taught by Carimalo, such zones are well known in the art as providing low astigmatism and for being symmetrical to the vertical axis allowing for use as either left or right lenses (Carimalo para. [0075], [0065]).
PNG
media_image12.png
691
610
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4-6, Varnas in view of Carimalo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Varnas teaches computer programs and manufacturing the spectacle lens (Varnas para. [0070]).
Conclusion
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 July 6, 2026
1 Spec. para. [0054]
2 Spec. para. [0023], [0024]
3 Spec. para. [0056]
Prosecution Insights