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 statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 contains illegible claim language. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, examiner assumes that the claim language should have been written:
wherein mean sphere is defined as
PNG
media_image1.png
124
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567), in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0377884), further in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430).
Regarding Claim 2, To discloses a lens wearable in front of an eye of a person and mountable in an eyeglasses frame, the lens comprising:
a refraction area having a refractive power based on a prescription corresponding to the eye of the person (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, area 1, Paragraph 0050, 8-10); and
a plurality of non-contiguous optical elements disposed located on a surface of the spectacle optical lens (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, refractive areas 2 are not touching and are therefore non-contiguous, Paragraph 0050, lines 10-12).
To discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose
at least one optical element of the of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements having a non-spherical optical function,
wherein the refraction area and the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements include a base material and a coating.
However, Lau, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one optical element of the of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements having a non-spherical optical function (Paragraph 0021, lines 1-14, Claim 18), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient while reducing optical aberrations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To with the wherein at least one optical element of the of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements having a non-spherical optical function, of Lau, for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient while reducing optical aberrations.
Additionally, Toyoshima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the refraction area and the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements include a base material and a coating (Fig. 4D, both the central area and the periphery, which includes the optical elements 6, comprise of a main body 2, made of a resin, and the hardcoat layer 8 and the antireflection film 10), for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau with the wherein the refraction area and the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements include a base material and a coating, of Toyoshima, for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Regarding Claim 11, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above and To further discloses wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located on a front surface of the lens (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6, refractive areas 2 are on the front surface of lens 10, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 16, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above and Lau further discloses wherein at least one optical element of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements has a non-spherical optical function and is configured to suppress a progress of abnormal refraction of the eye of the person (Paragraph 0021, lines 1-14, Claim 18, aspherical lenslets, Abstract, an optical zone to prevent and/or slow myopia progression), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient while reducing optical aberrations.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567), in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0377884), in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430), further in view of Newman (US 2017/0184875).
Regarding Claim 3, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a multifocal refractive micro-lens.
However, Newman, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a multifocal refractive micro-lens (Paragraph 0062, lines 4-7, the features having varying degrees of focusing power), for the purpose of improving the mitigation of the progression of myopia of a wearer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a multifocal refractive micro-lens, of Newman, for the purpose of improving the mitigation of the progression of myopia of a wearer.
Regarding Claim 4, To in view of Lau in view of Toyoshima, further in view of Newman, discloses as is set forth above and Lau further discloses wherein the multifocal refractive micro-lens includes an aspherical surface (Claim 18), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient while reducing optical aberrations. Additionally, Newman teaches a progressive surface (Paragraph 0062, lines 4-7, the features having varying degrees of focusing power), for the purpose of improving the mitigation of the progression of myopia of a wearer.
Regarding Claim 5, To in view of Lau, in view of Toyoshima, further in view of Newman, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the multifocal refractive micro-lens includes a toric surface.
However, Newman, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the multifocal refractive micro-lens includes a toric surface (Paragraph 0011, lines 9-12), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient with astigmatism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, in view of Toyoshima, further in view of Newman, with the wherein the multifocal refractive micro-lens includes a toric surface, of Newman, for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient with astigmatism.
Regarding Claim 6, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above and Lau further discloses a refractive micro-lens (Claim 18, lenslets), for the purpose of improving the mitigation of the progression of myopia of a wearer.
But To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a toric lens.
However, Newman, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a toric lens (Paragraph 0011, lines 9-12), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient with astigmatism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a toric lens, of Newman, for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient with astigmatism.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567), in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0377884), in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430), further in view of Meyers et al. (US 2017/0010479).
Regarding Claim 7, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is made of a birefringent material.
However, Meyers, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is made of a birefringent material (Paragraphs 0043, 0049, and 0051, birefringent material), for the purpose of defocusing an image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is made of a birefringent material, of Meyers, for the purpose of defocusing an image.
Regarding Claim 8, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a diffractive lens.
However, Meyers, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a diffractive lens (Paragraphs 0043, 0049, 0051, and 0052 diffractive optics), for the purpose of defocusing an image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a diffractive lens, of Meyers, for the purpose of defocusing an image.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567), in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0377884), in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430), further in view of Hones et al. (US 2019/0235279).
Regarding Claim 12, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located on a back surface of the lens.
However, Hones, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located on a back surface of the lens (Fig. 3A, recesses 304, Paragraph 0103, recesses 304), for the purpose of reducing myopia of a patient with an eyewear device that has a front-surface optical coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located on a back surface of the lens, of Hones, for the purpose of reducing myopia of a patient with an eyewear device that has a front-surface optical coating.
Regarding Claim 13, To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located between a front surface and a back surface of the lens.
However, Hones, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located between a front surface and a back surface of the lens (Fig. 3A, recesses 304, Paragraph 0103, recesses 304), for the purpose of reducing myopia of a patient with an eyewear device that has a front-surface optical coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau, further in view of Toyoshima, with the wherein at least part of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements are located between a front surface and a back surface of the lens, of Hones, for the purpose of reducing myopia of a patient with an eyewear device that has a front-surface optical coating.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567) in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430).
Regarding Claim 17, To discloses a method for treatment using a lens comprising:
obtaining a first refractive power corresponding to a prescription (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, area 1, Paragraph 0050, 8-10, Paragraph 0041); and
applying the lens having the first refractive power and a second refractive power, different from the first refractive power (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, more than two refractive areas 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 10-12, Paragraphs 0041 and 0051), wherein each of a plurality of optical elements having the second refractive power also have an optical function of not focusing on a retina of an eye of a person (Paragraph 0051, lines 10-11, Paragraph 0041), and
wherein an average mean sphere of one the plurality of optical elements varies from another one of the plurality of optical elements disposed closer towards an edge of the lens in an average mean sphere determination of the optical element (Fig. 5, the mean sphere of area 1 brings image light to a focus at the retina, Fig. 6, the mean sphere areas 2, disposed closer to the edge of the lens compared to the center of area 1, as shown in Fig. 1, bring image light to a focal point to a position in front of the retina, so the mean spheres are different),
wherein mean sphere is defined as
PNG
media_image1.png
124
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the plurality of optical elements include a base material and a coating.
Toyoshima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the refraction area and the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements include a base material and a coating (Fig. 4D, both the central area and the periphery, which includes the optical elements 6, comprise of a main body 2, made of a resin, and the hardcoat layer 8 and the antireflection film 10), for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To with the wherein the refraction area and the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements include a base material and a coating, of Toyoshima, for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To et al. (US 2017/0131567), in view of Lau et al. (US 2016/0377884), in view of Toyoshima (US 2021/0387430),
Regarding Claim 18, To discloses a lens comprising:
a refraction area having a refraction power based on a prescription corresponding to an eye of a person (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, area 1, Paragraph 0050, 8-10, Paragraph 0041); and
at least two optical elements (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, more than two refractive areas 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 10-12, Paragraphs 0041 and 0051),
wherein each of the at least two optical elements is configured so that along at least one section of the lens (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, more than two refractive areas 2, Paragraph 0050, lines 10-12, Paragraphs 0041 and 0051),
a mean sphere is different at a first point of the at least one section on at least one of the at least two optical elements than at a second point disposed closer to a peripheral part of the at least one section on a different one of the at least two optical elements (Fig. 5, the mean sphere of area 1 brings image light to a focus at the retina, Fig. 6, the mean sphere areas 2, disposed closer to the edge of the lens compared to the center of area 1, as shown in Fig. 1, bring image light to a focal point to a position in front of the retina, so the mean spheres are different), and
wherein the mean sphere is defined as SPHmean=½(SPHmin+SPHmax), where SPHmin and SPHmax are minimum and maximum spheres respectively.
To discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose
wherein at least one optical element of the at least two optical elements is a micro-lens …
wherein the at least two optical elements include a base material and a coating.
However, Lau, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein at least one optical element of the at least two optical elements is a micro-lens (Claim 18, lenslets), for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To with the wherein at least one optical element of the at least two optical elements is a micro-lens, of Lau, for the purpose of preventing myopia progression for a patient.
Additionally, Toyoshima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least two optical elements include a base material and a coating (Fig. 4D, both the central area and the periphery, which includes the optical elements 6, comprise of a main body 2, made of a resin, and the hardcoat layer 8 and the antireflection film 10), for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens element of To in view of Lau with the wherein the at least two optical elements include a base material and a coating, of Toyoshima, for the purpose of providing resilient eyewear that can mitigate the progression of myopia.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 are 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the diffractive lens includes a metasurface structure.
Specifically, with respect to claim 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein at least one of the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements is a multifocal binary component.
Specifically, with respect to claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising an ophthalmic lens bearing the refraction area and a clip-on bearing the plurality of non-contiguous optical elements, the clip-on being adapted to be removably attachable to the ophthalmic lens when the lens is worn.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a lens including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein for a circular zone having a radius comprised between 2 and 4 mm including a geometrical center located at a distance of an optical center of the lens equal to said radius+5 mm, a ratio between a sum of areas of parts of optical elements located inside said circular zone and an area of said circular zone is comprised between 20% and 70%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To et al. (US 10,268,050), To et al. (US 2006/0082729), Hones et al. (US 10,884,264), Back (US 2012/0194780), Phillips (US 2008/0218687), Bakaraju et al. (US 2022/0373824), Bakaraju et al. (US 2022/0342234), Sankaridurg et al. (US 2020/0183185), Martinez et al. (US 2017/0146824), and Buehren (US 2014/0375949) are cited to show similar lens elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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 on (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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights