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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 101 rejection of claims 3 and claim 7, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant cites to Ex Parte Desjardins and discusses whether the claims are directed to “an improvement to other technology or technical field under long standing Federal Circuit precedent”. Examiner is not persuaded.
The decision of Ex Parte Desjardins is not germane to the instant claims. Claims 3 and 7 are not directed to machine learning or the improvement of a computer function.
As for the improvement to other technology or technical field, while Examiner agrees the physical spectacle lens(es) itself/themselves (e.g. claim 1) is an improvement to another technology or technical field as discussed in Applicant’s specification, claims 3 and 7 are not directed to this “improvement” (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 3 is directed to a computer transmitting data. This is not an improvement to the other technology or technical field. It is a computer transmitting the spectacle lens data and nothing more. Such claim is exactly what the USPTO and Federal Circuit have explicitly stated is not patent eligible:
MPEP 2106.05(a) - To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
MPEP 2106.05(f)) - Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit)).
Similarly, claim 7 is not directed to the improvement of a spectacle lens as disclosed by Applicant’s specification. The claim is directed to a computer readable medium (CRM) storing instructions for the purpose manufacturing the lens. This is not an improvement to the other technology or technical field. The claim is directed to the fundamental purpose of CRM - to store data/computer code, and nothing more.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 7 and the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
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:
As to claim 3, the claim is directed to a method of providing spectacle lens data with a computer. There are no additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, prong 2), nor does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more (Step 2B). The claim is squarely in the criteria against integration into a practical application:
MPEP 2106.05(f) - Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Specifically the claim uses a computer to provide data. While the data is particular (e.g. spectacle lens surface data), the claim does nothing more than provide such data with a computer. The intent of the data “as data for processing at least one lens blank” is akin to “apply it” which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 4, 6 include generic manufacturing which is not a particular transformation (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Claim 5 is a generic non-transitory CRM which does not resolve the USC 101 issues.
As to claim 7, is rejected similar to claim 3 above, however claim 7 doesn’t include a computer. The claim is directed to data/code present on a CRM. There are no additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, prong 2), nor does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more (Step 2B). The claim is squarely in the criteria against integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) - Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The intent of the data “as data for processing at least one lens blank” is akin to “apply it” which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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_image1.png
631
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
706
1204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
689
811
media_image3.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 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]).
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]).
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).
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 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 March 20, 2026