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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 15, 2024 and July 29, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, in Detailed Description of Examples, line 19, both Figure 1a and Figure 1b should be discussed. It is suggested that “figure 1 illustrates” be deleted and “figures 1a and 1b illustrate” be inserted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 14, after “differences” and before “, and”, “in prismatic deviation” should be inserted to provide clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tranvouez-Bernardin et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0113770).
With respect to independent claim 1, although Tranvouez-Bernardin et al teaches a method for determining an optical design of a pair of progressive addition lenses to be worn in front of eyes of a wearer (page 1, paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and page 2, paragraph [0053]), determining, for a given locomotion posture of the wearer (page 1, paragraph [0012] and page 5, paragraph [0107]), in which the wearer wears the starting pair of progressive addition lenses, a set of differences in prismatic deviation induced by the starting pair of progressive addition lenses between a left eye and a right eye of the wearer over a set of gaze directions (page 4, paragraph [0103]); and determining said optical design based on; the prescription corrections, the set of differences [in prismatic deviation], and at least one binocular motility parameter (page 4, paragraph [0104]), Tranvouez-Bernardin et al fails to explicitly teach such a method wherein the optical design is adapted to provide near dioptric corrections in near vision reference points of the progressive addition lenses and far dioptric corrections in far vision reference points of the progressive addition lenses, comprising: selecting a starting pair of progressive addition lenses suitable for the near dioptric corrections and the far dioptric corrections. Tranvouez-Bernardin et al does teach such a method wherein the optical design designates a set of parameters defining dioptric functions of an ophthalmic lens enabling clear vision at all distance (page 4, paragraph [0104]), 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 specify the parameters to include dioptric corrections for far vision and near vision, i.e., all distance, to provide clear vision to the lens wearer.
With regard to dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 and 16-20, although Tranvouez-Bernardin et al teaches al of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Tranvouez-Bernardin et al fails to explicitly teach such a method defining the parameters in the determination of the optical design. Tranvouez-Bernardin et al does teach such a method wherein the optical parameters may include, but not limited to, power gradients, optical flow, retinal flow and deviation maps (page 3, paragraphs [0068] and [0069], 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 define the parameters used in a method of determining an optical design, as taught by Tranvouez-Bernardin et al, so long as it has an impact on sensorimotor behavior, i.e., locomotion (page 3, paragraph [0069]).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Tranvouez-Bernardin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a method wherein determining said optical design comprises a selection of a selected optical design among a plurality of predetermined optical designs (page 6, paragraph [0143]).
With regard to dependent claim 13, Tranvouez-Bernardin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a method wherein the given locomotion posture is a stair ascent (page 3, paragraph [0063]).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Tranvouez-Bernardin et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a method wherein the given locomotion posture is a stair descent (page 3, paragraph [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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: 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 a method for determining an optical design of a pair of progressive addition lenses intended to be worn in front of eyes of a wearer, said optical design being adapted to provide near dioptric corrections in near vision reference points of the progressive addition lenses and far dioptric corrections in far vision reference points of the progressive addition lenses, comprising: selecting a starting pair of progressive addition lenses suitable for the near dioptric corrections and the far dioptric corrections; determining, for a given locomotion posture of the wearer, in which the wearer wears the starting pair of progressive addition lenses, a set of differences in prismatic deviation induced by the starting pair of progressive addition lenses between a left eye and a right eye of the wearer over a set of gaze directions; and determining said optical design based on the near and far dioptric corrections, the set of differences, and at least one binocular motility parameter, the prior art fails to teach such a method wherein a visual acuity loss of the wearer, when wearing the pair of progressive addition lenses, is less than 0.05 logMAR in a set of gaze directions between a range of 20° to 50° of downwards gaze directions and a range of +/-15° of gaze eccentricity, as claimed in dependent claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Giraudet et al (U.S. Patent Number 11,500,224), Mousset et al (U.S. Patent Number 9,239,472) and Welk et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0333408) all teach methods of designing optical 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
11 March 2026