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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/24/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “node” throughout the claim. This limitation is unclear as what exactly a “node” is in the context of the invention is not specified in the claims. Is this a microlens, a bump, ink, a depression, or something else specific to reducing the transmission of light through the lens? Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP § 2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret “node” to be anything on the lens which may perform the desired function.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “the one or more wavelengths selected to alter a color perception and/or color discriminability of a person” in lines 5-6 of the claim. This limitation is unclear as it appears to be subjective to the wants or needs of the user (MPEP §2173.05(b)) while also characterizing a feature by problem it solves or its function rather than what the feature is (MPEP §2173.05(g)). Due to the subjective and functional nature of this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as a color perception is altered in any way for a person, this limitation will be considered met.
Regarding claim 1, the claim written as a whole may be interpreted as a product-by-process claim, as the claim states “the one or more wavelengths selected to alter a color perception and/or color discriminability of a person” in lines 5-6 of the claim, which appears to be a combination of a product (the contact lens) and also the process of designing the product (the method of selecting the desired wavelength). If this is the case, this will determine how the claim is examined and interpreted in light of the art. Without knowing definitively if this is a product-by-process claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(p)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will examine the claim as if it were not a product by process claim.
Also, claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosser et. al US 20140253871 (hereinafter “Rosser”).
Regarding claim 1, Rosser teaches a lens comprising:
a body of a contact lens (Rosser fig. 1-2), the body comprising a side (Rosser fig. 1-2); and
a plurality of nodes formed onto the side (Rosser fig. 1 – 1, 2), each node of the plurality of nodes having a parameter value that is based at least in part on a reduction of transmission of light through the lens at one or more wavelengths (Rosser para. 0001, 0035-0036, 0043-0044), the one or more wavelengths selected to alter a color perception and/or color discriminability of a person (Rosser para. 0001, 0010, 0012, 0036), the parameter value comprising a value of: a distance between the node and an adjacent node of the plurality of nodes, a shape of the node, a dimension of the node, a configuration of an arrangement in which the plurality of nodes are arranged on the side, a composition of a material coating the node, and/or a material composition of the node (Rosser fig. 1-2 – dot colour matrix, see also para. 0022-0029, 0035-0036, 0043-0044 – material composition being the color of the dot colour matrix, arrangement of matrix on side of contact lens being shown in the figures, material coating the node being the CVD tint of the lens).
Regarding claim 2, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1, and Rosser further teaches wherein the one or more wavelengths comprise a wavelength range that is based at least in part on a color vision deficiency (“CVD”) profile of the person (Rosser para. 0001, 0022-0029, 0036).
Regarding claim 4, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 2, and Rosser further teaches wherein the CVD profile comprises a deficiency of the person in perceiving light within a tested wavelength range of light and a deficiency of the person in discriminating between light of different wavelengths within the tested wavelength range of light (Rosser para. 0001-0004, 0022-0029).
Regarding claim 5, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 4, and Rosser further teaches wherein the wavelength range is based at least in part on the deficiency of the person in perceiving light within the tested wavelength range of light and the deficiency of the person in discriminating between light of different wavelengths within the tested wavelength range of light (Rosser para. 0001-0004, 0022-0029).
Regarding claim 6, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1, and Rosser further teaches each of the plurality of nodes comprising an ellipse shape, the ellipse shape comprising an aspect ratio, wherein the dimension comprises the aspect ratio (Rosser fig. 1-2 – dot colour matrix comprises ellipse shapes, which would necessarily include an aspect ratio and the dimension would necessarily include an aspect ratio).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser et. al US 20140253871 (hereinafter “Rosser”).
Regarding claim 3, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 2.
Rosser does not specify wherein the plurality of nodes are separated from each other at a distance that is based at least in part on a wavelength within the wavelength range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of nodes are separated from each other at a distance that is based at least in part on a wavelength within the wavelength range for the purpose of disguising the reddish appearance of the base tint (Rosser para. 0035), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1.
Rosser does not specify wherein the plurality of nodes are separated from each other a distance not less than 10 nanometers (“nm”) and not greater than 1000 nm away from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of nodes are separated from each other a distance not less than 10 nanometers (“nm”) and not greater than 1000 nm away from each other for the purpose of disguising the reddish appearance of the base tint (Rosser para. 0035), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et. al US Patent 6,203,156 (hereinafter “Wu”) and Dean US 20130188123 (hereinafter “Dean”).
Regarding claim 8, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1.
Rosser does not teach wherein the body includes a plurality of cavities and each node of the plurality of nodes is located within a cavity of the plurality of cavities.
In the same field of endeavor, Dean teaches wherein the body (Dean fig. 3 - 64) includes a cavity (Dan fig. 3 - 74) and each node (Dean fig. 3 - 80) is located within a cavity (Dean fig. 3) for the purpose of mass producing ophthalmic lenses by direct injection molding (Dean para. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cavity on the body with a node as taught by Dean in the lens of Rosser in order to mass produce ophthalmic lenses by direct injection molding (Dean para. 0019).
Further, Wu teaches a plurality of cavities (Wu fig. 1-2 - 11) for the purpose of reflecting and focusing the light that impinges upon the concave surface of the hole (Wu col. 2 lines 47-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the cavity (64) and node (80) of Dean as taught by Wu, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varnas et. al US 20230161177 (hereinafter “Varnas”).
Regarding claim 9, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1.
Rosser does not teach at least one node of the plurality of nodes comprising an ellipse shape, wherein a length of a minor axis of the ellipse shape is not less than 5 nm and not greater than 150 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Varnas teaches at least one node of the plurality of nodes comprising an ellipse shape (Varnas fig. 1 – 13, where the nodes are shown to have multiple different axis lengths) for the purpose of keeping the discomfort for the wearer tolerable (Varnas para. 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elliptical nodes as taught by Varnas in the lens of Rosser in order to keep the discomfort for the wearer tolerable (Varnas para. 0079).
Varnas teaches nodes on a spectacle lens, therefore to apply the nodes of Varnas to a contact lens like in Rosser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have wherein a length of a minor axis of the ellipse shape is not less than 5 nm and not greater than 150 nm for the purpose of keeping the discomfort for the wearer tolerable (Varnas para. 0079), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knapp US Patent 4,582,402 (hereinafter “Knapp”).
Regarding claim 10, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1.
Rosser does not teach wherein the arrangement of the plurality of nodes comprises a substantially square array on the side and the side comprises a convex side.
In the same field of endeavor, Knapp teaches wherein the arrangement of the plurality of nodes comprises a substantially square array on the side and the side comprises a convex side (Knapp fig. 1 – shows a front view of the contact lens which would have the dot pattern over the iris section 12, fig. 3 shows a dot pattern in a substantially square array, and col. 3 lines 17-29 describe the dot pattern being applied to the convex front surface of the contact lens) for the purpose of achieving the desired coloring effect (Knapp col. 2 line 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the arrangement of the plurality of nodes comprises a substantially square array on the side and the side comprises a convex side as taught by Knapp in the lens of Rosser in order to achieve the desired coloring effect (Knapp col. 2 line 12).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tucker et. al US 20120026459 (hereinafter “Tucker”).
Regarding claim 11, Rosser teaches the lens of claim 1.
Rosser does not teach wherein each node of the plurality of nodes comprises a metallic material.
In the same field of endeavor, Tucker teaches wherein each node of the plurality of nodes comprises a metallic material (Tucker para. 0057 – pearlescent colored elements comprise at least one pearlescent pigment on the contact lens, para. 0041 – a pearlescent pigment which includes a metal oxide coated layer) for the purpose of providing a pearly luster and iridescent effects (Tucker para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each node of the plurality of nodes comprises a metallic material as taught by Tucker in the lens of Rosser in order to provide a pearly luster and iridescent effects (Tucker para. 0041).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Varnas et. al US Patent 11,782,293, patent of Varnas et. al US 20230161177;
Rogers et. al US Patent 6,568,807, teaches a plurality of cavities on a contact lens front surface;
Ocampo US 20030025872, teaches a contact lens with a plurality of nodes and a turquoise colorant;
Neefe et. al US Patent 4,472,327, teaches a cosmetic contact lens with a plurality of nodes.
Streibig et. al US 20030007122, teaches a colored contact lens with a plurality of nodes;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights