DETAILED ACTION
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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendments on 02/19/26 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on pages 5-6, filed on 02/19/26 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 5, the cited reference does not disclose each of the fifth and sixth regions provide a refractive power greater than the fourth refractive power.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Meister teaches of the fifth (5) and sixth (6) regions provide a refractive power greater than to the fourth refractive power (4) shown in annotated 11:12 shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 20-22, 24-29, 31,32, 34-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Meister (Introduction to Ophthalmic Optics).
Regarding claim 20, Meister teaches an ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) for use in front of an eye of a recipient, the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) comprising in an optic zone, a first region (fig. 11:12, shown below label 1) including distance point (fig. 1:3(c), “distance”) located to be substantially aligned with a location of an optical axis of the eye during ahead distance vision; a second region (2) located laterally to one side of the distance point (fig. 1:3(c), “distance”); a third region (3) located laterally to the other side of the distance point (fig. 1:3(c), “distance”); a fourth region (4) located below the distance point (fig. 1:3(c), “distance”); a fifth region (5) located laterally to one side of the fourth region (4); and a sixth region (6) located laterally to the other side of the fourth region (4); wherein the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) has a first refractive power (1) at the distance point (fig. 1:3(c), “distance”), and each of the second (2) and third (3) regions provide additional refractive power relative to the first (1) refractive power (as illustrated in fig. 11:12); the lens has a first refractive power profile (the first refractive power profile consist of the second region, first region, and third region areas) across the second region (2), first region (1) and third region (3); the fourth region (4) provides an additional refractive power relative to the first refractive power (1); each of the fifth (5) and sixth (6) regions provide a refractive power greater than to the fourth refractive power (4) and lens has a second refractive power profile (the second refractive power profile consist of the fifth region, fourth region, and sixth region areas) across the fifth region (5), fourth region (4) and sixth region (6); the second refractive power profile (dark gray portion in region 4 shown in fig. 11:12 which is flatter because of the consistent (shown in gray)) is flatter than the first refractive power profile (area across the second region, first region and third region); and the ophthalmic lens is a spectacle lens (fig. 1:3 consist of bifocal or trifocal which is a spectacle lens) or a translating contact lens.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
455
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein the ophthalmic lens is a spectacle lens (fig. 1:3 consist of bifocal or trifocal which is a spectacle lens).
Regarding claim 22, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 21, wherein optic zone is coterminous with the spectacle lens (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 above, the outline of the lens shows the optic zone is coterminous).
Regarding claim 24, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein the first refractive power profile is asymmetrical (shown in annotated fig. 11:12, in the plot showing that the profile is asymmetrical).
Regarding claim 25, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 24, wherein the second refractive power profile asymmetrical (shown in annotated fig. 11:12, in the plot showing that the profile is asymmetrical).
Regarding claim 26, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein the second refractive power profile is asymmetrical (shown in annotated fig. 11:12, in the plot showing that the profile is asymmetrical).
Regarding claim 27, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein the second (2) and third (3) regions provide their respective additional refractive power relative to the first (1) refractive power across at least along all parts of a horizontal meridian aligned with the distance point that are within the second (2) and third (3) regions (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 above).
Regarding claim 28, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 27, wherein the fifth (5) region is vertically aligned with the second (2) region and the sixth (6) region is vertically aligned with the third (3) region (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 above).
Regarding claim 29, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 28, wherein each of the second (2) and third (3) regions provide an additional refractive power relative to the first refractive power of +4.0 D or less (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 below as +0.5 D and +1 D).
Regarding claim 31, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 28, wherein the ophthalmic lens is a spectacle lens (fig. 1:3 consist of bifocal or trifocal which is a spectacle lens) and the fourth (4) region includes a location on the ophthalmic lens at which it provides its additional refractive power relative to the first refractive power that is between 25% to 40% of the distance from the distance point to a bottom peripheral edge of the lens (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 the distance is approximately between 30 to 39%).
Regarding claim 32, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 28, wherein the ophthalmic lens is a spectacle lens (fig. 1:3 consist of bifocal or trifocal which is a spectacle lens) and the fourth (4) region includes a location on the ophthalmic lens at which it provides its additional refractive power relative to the first (1) refractive power that is a mid-point between the distance point to a bottom peripheral edge of the lens (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 above).
Regarding claim 34, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein a minimum (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 as the clear space which represents the minimum) in the first power profile is within the first (1) region.
Regarding claim 35, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 28, wherein the ophthalmic lens is a spectacle lens (fig. 1:3 consist of bifocal or trifocal which is a spectacle lens) and the fourth (4) region includes a location on the ophthalmic lens at which it provides its additional refractive power relative to the first refractive (1) power that is vertically offset from the location of the distance point by 5 mm (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 and the plot which is measure in mm).
Regarding claim 36, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein a minimum in the second power profile is within the fourth (4) region (shown in annotated fig. 11:12, the second power profile is in the fourth region).
Regarding claim 37, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 35, wherein the additional refractive power relative to the first refractive power (1) in the fourth (4) region is between 0.5 and 4.0D (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 above, approximately between 1.5 D and 2 D).
Regarding claim 38, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 28, wherein the first refractive power profile progressively increases (shown in annotated fig. 11:12) to either size of the first (1) region across the optic zone and the second refractive power profile progressively increases (shown in annotated fig. 11:12) to either side of the fourth (4) region across the optic zone.
Regarding claim 39, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens (fig. 11:12) of claim 20, wherein the first refractive power is a minimum in the first power profile (shown in annotated fig. 11:12 as the clear space which represents the minimum) and a minimum in the second power profile is in the fourth (4) region (shown in annotated fig. 11:12, the second power profile is in the fourth region).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meister (Introduction to Ophthalmic Optics) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Franques et al. (US 8,632,187).
Regarding claim 23, Meister teaches the ophthalmic lens wherein the ophthalmic lens is a intended for general use but does not specifically teach a translating contact lens. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Franques teaches the ophthalmic lens (col. 1, lines 25-45), wherein lens is a translating contact lens (claim 1 and col. 1, lines 20-25, progressive rigid gas permeable contact lens). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lens of Meister with a translating contact lens of Franques, for the purpose of correcting for the lack of accommodation “presbyopia” in all eyes that are normal or unaltered and in eyes that have been altered by refractive surgery or any surgical procedure that modifies or changes the shape of the cornea such as transplants (col 1, lines 20-25).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 05/30/26
Prosecution Insights