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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “16”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because, on page 1, “Figure 2” and “Figure 1” should be renumbered to say –Figure 1— and –Figure 2-- to go in order. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1, “Method” should be corrected to say –A method--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1, “the images” should be corrected to say –images-- due to an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3, “a deflectometry method” should be corrected to say –the deflectometry method—because the antecedent basis is set forth in claim 1.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “the nominal wavelength” should be corrected to say –a nominal wavelength— due to an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, “the prescription” should be corrected to say –a prescription— due to an antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter
Claim 1:
Preamble: “Method for characterizing at least part of a lens element adapted for a wearer and comprising a plurality of optical elements, each optical element … providing at least an optical power;”
L1: “obtaining a two-dimension representation of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element using a deflectometry method;”
L2: “determining the optical power distribution over at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element;”
L3: “characterizing at least the part of the lens element … by analyzing the determined optical power distribution.”
Dependent claims 2–13 (depend from claim 1):
C2: The 2D representation covers at least 25% of the surface of the lens element.
C3: The 2D representation covers at least a part that comprises at least 25% of the optical elements.
C4: Images used for deflectometry consist of pixels ≤ 0.05 mm × 0.05 mm.
C5: Characterization is based on at least one of: (i) optical power value of at least one peak, (ii) surface of at least one peak, (iii) width of at least one peak, (iv) degree of symmetry of at least one peak.
C6: The method characterizes at least part of the optical elements within the 2D representation.
C7: ≥50% of the optical elements are multifocal lenslets.
C8: ≥50% of the optical elements are diffractive lenslets.
C9: Multi-wavelength variant: obtain at least two 2D representations at two different wavelengths; determine distributions; characterize by comparing the distributions.
C10: One wavelength corresponds to the nominal wavelength of the diffractive lenslets.
C11: ≥50% of the optical elements are refractive lenslets.
C12: ≥50% of the optical elements are diffusive lenslets.
C13: The lens element comprises a refraction area having a refractive power based on the prescription for correcting an abnormal refraction of the eye.
Claim 14:
Preamble: “Method for checking the conformity of a manufactured lens element …”
L14.1: “obtaining characterizing data relating to at least one optical characteristic of the optical elements of the lens element to be manufactured;”
L14.2: “characterizing the optical elements of the manufactured lens element using the method of claim 1;”
L14.3: “comparing the characteristics … with the characterizing data so as to check the conformity of the manufactured lens element.”
Claim 15:
Preamble: “Method for controlling a lens element manufacturing process …”
L15.a: “manufacturing a lens element according to a manufacturing process;”
L15.b: “determining at least one characteristic of the manufactured lens element of step a) according to the method of claim 1;”
L15.c: “recording the difference between the determined at least one characteristic and a reference value;”
L15.d: “repeating regularly step a) to c) and checking the evolution of the difference over time;”
Wherein-clause: “the evolution of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process … is checked over time and the evolution … of said difference is related with the evolution … of the at least one parameter of the manufacturing process.”
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
Claims 1–15 are “processes” (methods) and thus fall within a statutory category under § 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; quote offending clauses.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 each “recite” abstract ideas in the mental-process and mathematical-concept groupings (2019 PEG; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2); Oct. 2019 Update):
Mental processes: steps of analyzing, evaluating, determining, comparing, and characterizing information are activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom; SAP v. InvestPic).
Clauses that recite judicial exception:
Claim 1:
“determining the optical power distribution over at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element;”
“characterizing … by analyzing the determined optical power distribution.”
Claim 14:
“obtaining characterizing data relating to at least one optical characteristic …;”
“characterizing … using the method of claim 1;”
“comparing the characteristics … with the characterizing data so as to check the conformity ….”
Claim 15:
“determining at least one characteristic … according to the method of claim 1;”
“recording the difference … and a reference value;”
“checking the evolution of the difference over time;”
“related with the evolution … of the at least one parameter ….”
Mathematical concepts: “determining the optical power distribution” reasonably encompasses calculations over numeric fields (e.g., histograms, peak detection, statistics), which fall within “mathematical relationships/formulas” per the PEG, even though not explicitly formulaic in the claims.
The “obtaining a two-dimension representation … using a deflectometry method” and “manufacturing a lens element” steps appear as data-gathering or context steps surrounding the core analysis, and do not by themselves remove the recited abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application.
Claim 1
Particular machine or transformation: The claim invokes “using a deflectometry method” but does not recite a particular machine configuration or an improvement to deflectometry technology or computer functioning (no specific geometry, calibration, or signal-processing innovation is claimed). The focus is on analyzing an already-obtained 2D power map and “characterizing” based on its distribution—an informational result. No transformation of an article results from the analysis (contrast Diamond v. Diehr).
Meaningful limitations vs. extra-solution activity: The deflectometry acquisition is, at most, pre-solution data gathering in a particular field; “determining [a] distribution” and “characterizing … by analyzing” are the core abstract steps. Field-of-use (lens elements; deflectometry) and data gathering limitations are insufficient to integrate the exception. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2–13
C2/C3 (coverage of area), C4 (pixel size), C5 (use of peak metrics), C6 (what is characterized), C7–C13 (properties of the lens under test; multi-wavelength acquisition/comparison) add field-of-use restrictions, data acquisition parameters, or further analytical outputs. None recite a technological improvement to deflectometry or computers, a particular machine with a specific configuration, or a transformation tied to the analysis. They remain extra-solution or result-oriented limitations. Accordingly, claims 2–13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 14
The method is a quality/conformity check comprising data acquisition (per claim 1), comparison to reference “characterizing data,” and classification (“check the conformity”). This is paradigmatic “collect-analyze-compare” (Electric Power Group) yielding an informational result. No particular machine improvement or transformation ensues. Thus, no integration into a practical application.
Claim 15
Although it includes “manufacturing a lens element,” the subsequent steps merely measure, record differences, trend the data, and “relate” the trends to process parameters. There is no recited control action that adjusts or changes the manufacturing process based on the analysis. The manufacturing occurs irrespective of the analytical results; the analytical steps remain extra-solution activity (monitoring). Absent a recited feedback/control step that changes the manufactured article or machine operation, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more; discuss WURC with evidentiary considerations.
The non-abstract elements across the claims are:
Using a “deflectometry method” to obtain a 2D local power map (claims 1–13; 14–15 via claim 1).
In claim 4, specifying pixel size ≤ 0.05 mm × 0.05 mm for the images used.
In claim 9/10, using multiple wavelengths, one corresponding to the nominal diffractive wavelength.
In claim 15, manufacturing a lens element; recording and monitoring differences over time.
On the present record, these are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) in optical metrology and manufacturing quality control:
The specification itself acknowledges that deflectometry and fringe deflectometry devices are existing, known measurement techniques used to map local optical power, and that the proposed approach leverages such devices (e.g., “using existing deflectometry measuring devices,” measurements “carried out very quickly,” and other deflectometry methods are known). Such admissions support a Berkheimer-compliant factual finding that the use of deflectometry, as broadly claimed, is conventional.
Multi-wavelength measurements and selection of a nominal wavelength for diffractive structures are standard metrology practices in diffractive optics characterization; the claims do not recite any non-conventional arrangement or processing.
Specifying an image pixel size/resolution is a routine parameter choice absent evidence of a non-conventional implementation that improves the machine or yields unexpected performance.
Manufacturing a lens, recording differences to a reference, repeating, and trend checking are conventional quality-control/monitoring activities; no non-conventional feedback control or machine operation is claimed.
Taken individually and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas. The claims thus fail Step 2B.
Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101.
Claim 1: Ineligible under § 101. The claim recites mental-process/mathematical-concept abstract ideas and does not integrate them into a practical application; remaining elements are WURC data gathering.
Claims 2–13: Ineligible under § 101 for the same reasons as claim 1; the added limitations do not integrate the exception or add significantly more.
Claim 14: Ineligible under § 101. Offending clauses include “comparing the characteristics … so as to check the conformity,” which is an informational evaluation; the method as a whole is collect-analyze-compare without a technological improvement or transformation.
Claim 15: Ineligible under § 101. Although it includes “manufacturing a lens element,” the core of the claim is monitoring and analyzing; no process control or transformation tied to the analysis is recited. Offending clauses include “recording the difference …,” “checking the evolution …,” and “related with the evolution …,” which are mental/informational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glasenapp et al. (US20180120198A1), hereinafter Glasenapp, from the IDS.
As to claim 1, Glasenapp teaches method for characterizing at least part of a lens element adapted for a wearer (fig. 4; observer 94) and comprising a plurality of optical elements, each optical element of the plurality of optical elements (claim 1; An apparatus for measuring individual data of spectacles arranged in a measurement position, the spectacles having a least one of a left spectacle lens with a permanent marking and a right spectacle lens with a permanent marking) providing at least an optical power ([0089]; determining the optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18);
wherein the method comprises:
- obtaining a two-dimension representation of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element (fig. 2 and 11; [0089]; In order to determine the optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18, the computer program ascertains the location Ptest object at which a light ray emanating from the display 24 passes through a corresponding spectacle lens 16, 18) using a deflectometry method (claim 13; calculating a deflectometric phase amplitude image from the captured stripe patterns)
- determining the optical power distribution over at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element ([0054]; The computer unit with a computer program determines the two-dimensional test structure 25 captured by the image capture device. [0089]-[0090]; The computer program is used to determine the optical power using data from the display 24, which comprises the two-dimensional test structure 25),
and - characterizing at least the part of the lens element within said at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element by analyzing the determined optical power distribution ([0089]; The optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18 is determined. Then, the local ray deflections for light rays which pass through the spectacle lenses 16, 18 of spectacles 14 arranged in the apparatus 10 are respectively determined. From this, the computer program then ascertains the refractive power distribution. Thus, characterizing at least part of the lens element within the two-dimensional test structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
2396
1405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Glasenapp Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
566
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Glasenapp Fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
1212
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Glasenapp Fig. 11
As to claim 6, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method characterizes at least part of the optical elements within said at least part of the two- dimension representation of the lens element (fig. 2 and 11; [0086]; The reference surfaces 50, 52 are respectively used as virtual planes of refraction. The computer program in the computer unit 82 accordingly evaluates the distortion of the image of the two-dimensional test structure 25 displayed on the display 24 in the image plane 38 of the camera 30).
As to claim 13, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the lens element comprises a refraction area having a refractive power based on the prescription ([0083]; The computer unit 82 determines a refractive power distribution for at least one section of the left spectacle lens 16 and for at least one section of the right spectacle lens 18. The refractive power distribution is implicitly based on the prescription of the lens element) for correcting an abnormal refraction of an eye of the wearer ([0128]-[0131]; The system is capable of checking “whether the axis position of the lenses in the spectacle frame is correct”, “whether a spectacle lens has been incorporated into the frame of spectacles in a correct and tension-free manner”, whether the “fit of the lens in the frame” is correct, and “whether the correct lens was inserted into the frame”. If one is incorrect, the refraction of the “eyes of a spectacle wearer” would be incorrect, i.e. abnormal. Thus, the system allows for the refraction to be corrected).
As to claim 14, Glasenapp teaches method for checking the conformity of a manufactured lens element adapted for a wearer ([0130]; “It should be noted that, in a system for checking individual data of spectacles, e.g., spectacle-wearer-specific fitting data, containing one of the apparatuses 10, 110, 210, or 310 described above, it is also possible to make a further qualitative statement about the quality of manufactured spectacles from the superposition of the measurement data with an image of the adaptation”)
and comprising a plurality of optical elements ([0089]; the spectacle lenses 16, 18), each optical element of the plurality of optical elements providing at least an optical power ([0089]; determining the optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18) so as to at least one of slow down, retard or prevent a progress of the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer ([0128]-[0131]; The system is capable of checking “whether the axis position of the lenses in the spectacle frame is correct”, “whether a spectacle lens has been incorporated into the frame of spectacles in a correct and tension-free manner”, whether the “fit of the lens in the frame” is correct, and “whether the correct lens was inserted into the frame”. If one is incorrect, the refraction of the “eyes of a spectacle wearer” would be incorrect, i.e. abnormal. Thus, the system allows for the prevention of a progress of abnormal refraction of the “eyes of a spectacle wearer”), wherein the method comprises:
- obtaining characterizing data relating to at least one optical characteristic of the optical elements of the lens element to be manufactured ([0124]; One of the optical characteristics is described by Glasenapp as the refractive power distribution. The refractive power distribution corresponds to local beam deflections of these light rays caused by the spectacle lens 16 or the spectacle lens 18),
- characterizing the optical elements of the manufactured lens element using the method of claim 1 ([0089]; The optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18 is determined. Then, the local ray deflections for light rays which pass through the spectacle lenses 16, 18 of spectacles 14 arranged in the apparatus 10 are respectively determined. From this, the computer program then ascertains the refractive power distribution. Thus, characterizing at least part of the lens element within the two-dimensional test structure),
- comparing the characteristics of the optical elements of the manufactured lens element with the characterizing data so as to check the conformity of the manufactured lens element ([0127]; Such a system may also have a device for comparing a spatially resolved refractive power of the right spectacle lens and/or left).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2-5, 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp from the IDS in view of Guillot et al. (US12429710B2), hereinafter Guillot.
As to claim 2, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least 25%, of the surface of the lens element.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least 25%, of the surface of the lens element (Guillot col. 8 ln. 51-55; “According to the present disclosure the optical power on a circle center on the center of an optical element having a diameter of 75% of the diameter of the optical element is considered as the global optical power of the optical element”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least 25%, of the surface of the lens element; for the advantage of optimizing data.
As to claim 3, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least a part of the lens element that comprises at least 25%, of the optical elements.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least a part of the lens element that comprises at least 25%, of the optical elements (Guillot claim 1; “A method implemented by computer means for characterizing optical elements” which each have “a contour shape inscribable in a circle”. Col. 8 ln. 51-55; “According to the present disclosure the optical power on a circle center on the center of an optical element having a diameter of 75% of the diameter of the optical element is considered as the global optical power of the optical element”. Thus, the local optical power corresponds to at least a part of the lens element (75%), which is at least 25%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include wherein the two-dimension representation of the local optical power corresponds to at least a part of the lens element that comprises at least 25%, of the optical elements; for the advantage of optimizing data.
As to claim 4, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein the images used for the deflectometry method consist of pixels smaller than or equal to 0.05 mm x 0.05 mm.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the images used for the deflectometry method consist of pixels smaller than or equal to 0.05 mm x 0.05 mm (Guillot abstract; the images used for the fringe deflectometry method consist of pixels smaller than or equal to 0.05 mm×0.05 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include wherein the images used for the deflectometry method consist of pixels smaller than or equal to 0.05 mm x 0.05 mm; for the advantages of allowing for characterization of the whole surface of the lens element using existing deflectometry measuring devices (Guillot col. 2 ln. 4-10).
As to claim 5, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the part of the lens element within said at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element is characterized based on at least one of:
- the optical power value of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution ([0089]; The optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18 is determined. Then, the local ray deflections for light rays which pass through the spectacle lenses 16, 18 of spectacles 14 arranged in the apparatus 10 are respectively determined. From this, the computer program then ascertains the refractive power distribution. Thus, characterizing at least part of the lens element within the two-dimensional test structure is based on the optical power value of at least one implicit peak of the determined optical power distribution),
and/or - the surface of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution, and/or- the width value of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution, and/or - the degree of symmetry of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution.
As to claim 7, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are multifocal lenslets.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are multifocal lenslets (Guillot col. 5 ln. 4-5; at least one, for example all, of the optical elements is a multifocal refractive micro-lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are multifocal lenslets; for the advantage of slowing down myopia (Guillot col. 1 ln. 31-33).
As to claim 11, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are refractive lenslets.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are refractive lenslets (Guillot col. 5 ln. 4-5; at least one, for example all, of the optical elements is a multifocal refractive micro-lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are refractive lenslets; for the advantage of slowing down myopia (Guillot col. 1 ln. 31-33).
As to claim 15, Glasenapp teaches method, each lens element being adapted for a wearer (fig. 4; observer 94) and comprising a plurality of optical elements (fig. 4; spectacle lenses 16 and 18),
each optical element of the plurality of optical elements providing at least an optical power ([0089]; determining the optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18) so as to at least one of slow down, retard or prevent a progress of the abnormal refraction of the eye of the wearer ([0128]-[0131]; The system is capable of checking “whether the axis position of the lenses in the spectacle frame is correct”, “whether a spectacle lens has been incorporated into the frame of spectacles in a correct and tension-free manner”, whether the “fit of the lens in the frame” is correct, and “whether the correct lens was inserted into the frame”. If one is incorrect, the refraction of the “eyes of a spectacle wearer” would be incorrect, i.e. abnormal. Thus, the system allows for the prevention of a progress of abnormal refraction of the “eyes of a spectacle wearer”), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
b) determining at least one characteristic of the manufactured lens element of step a) according to the method of claim 1 ([0089]; The optical power of the spectacle lens 16 or spectacle lens 18 is determined. Then, the local ray deflections for light rays which pass through the spectacle lenses 16, 18 of spectacles 14 arranged in the apparatus 10 are respectively determined. From this, the computer program then ascertains the refractive power distribution. Thus, characterizing at least part of the lens element within the two-dimensional test structure),
c) recording the difference between the determined at least one characteristic and a reference value ([0127]; Such a system may also have a device for comparing a spatially resolved refractive power of the right spectacle lens and/or left).
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose the method for controlling a lens element manufacturing process for manufacturing lens elements; comprising the step of a) manufacturing a lens element according to a manufacturing process; and d) repeating regularly step a) to c) and checking the evolution of the difference over time, wherein the evolution of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process used for manufacturing the lens elements is checked over time and the evolution over time of said difference is related with the evolution over time of the at least one parameter of the manufacturing process.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the method for controlling a lens element manufacturing process for manufacturing lens elements (Guillot claim 13; A method for controlling a lens element manufacturing process for manufacturing lens elements);
comprising the step of a) manufacturing a lens element according to a manufacturing process (Guillot claim 13; “a) manufacturing a lens element according to a manufacturing process”);
and d) repeating regularly step a) to c) and checking the evolution of the difference over time, wherein the evolution of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process used for manufacturing the lens elements is checked over time and the evolution over time of said difference is related with the evolution over time of the at least one parameter of the manufacturing process (Guillot claim 13; “(d) repeating regularly step a) to c) for a plurality of lens elements and checking the evolution of the difference over time, wherein the evolution of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process used for manufacturing the lens element is checked over time and the evolution over time of said difference is related with the evolution over time of the at least one parameter of the manufacturing process”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Guillot to include the method for controlling a lens element manufacturing process for manufacturing lens elements; comprising the step of a) manufacturing a lens element according to a manufacturing process; and d) repeating regularly step a) to c) and checking the evolution of the difference over time, wherein the evolution of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process used for manufacturing the lens elements is checked over time and the evolution over time of said difference is related with the evolution over time of the at least one parameter of the manufacturing process; for the advantage of process adjustability.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp from the IDS in view of Biteau (US 20230152496 A1).
As to claim 8, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffractive lenslets.
Biteau, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffractive lenslets ([0089]-[0091]; Preferably at least 50% of the microlenses share the same optical functions. [0109]; The plurality of optical elements can be diffractive structures such as microlenses. Thus, at least 50% of the microlenses can be diffractive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Biteau to include wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffractive lenslets; for the advantage of enabling the suppression or slow down the progress of myopia (Biteau [0004]).
As to claim 12, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffusive lenslets.
Biteau, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffusive lenslets ([0089]-[0091]; Preferably at least 50% of the microlenses share the same optical functions. [0109]; The plurality of optical elements can be light-diffusing optical elements. Thus, at least 50% of the microlenses can be diffusive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Biteau to include wherein at least 50% of the optical elements are diffusive lenslets; for the advantage of enabling the suppression or slow down the progress of myopia (Biteau [0004]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp from the IDS in view of Biteau, further in view of Vázquez et al. (US20150277146A1), hereinafter Vázquez.
As to claim 9, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 8.
However, Glasenapp in view of Biteau does not explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises: - obtaining at least two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element using a deflectometry method at at least two different wavelengths, - determining the optical power distribution over at least part of each of the at least two two- dimension representations of the lens element, and - characterizing the optical elements by comparing the at least two determined optical power distributions.
Vázquez, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the method comprises: - obtaining at least two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element (Vázquez [0109]; The sensing elements or measurement devices can supply information or direct data about “optical power of the lens substrate; optical power of the added material; optical power of the combined added polymerized material and lens substrate”, those of which can inherently be two-dimensional. “Preferably, measurements are conducted at several discrete points, or over an extended area of interest relative to the lens substrate”. Thus, there can be two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element) using a deflectometry method (Vázquez [0106]; the sensing element is configured to use deflectometry) at at least two different wavelengths (Vázquez [0103]; Several methods can be used to control exposure of one or more lens substrate surfaces, including carefully controlling the effective wavelengths, plural, i.e. at least two different wavelengths),
- determining the optical power distribution over at least part of each of the at least two two- dimension representations of the lens element (Vázquez [0052]; the added material design may modify or optimize other optical properties such as “power distribution at different locations on the lens”, i.e. at least two locations on the lens),
and - characterizing the optical elements by comparing the at least two determined optical power distributions (Vázquez [0109]; These optical power “measurements can be compared with the added material design, or can be used as inputs to calculate what optical power was achieved with the added material on the lens substrate”. Thus, the at least two determined optical power distributions can be compared).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp in view of Biteau to incorporate the teachings of Vázquez to include wherein the method comprises: - obtaining at least two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element using a deflectometry method at at least two different wavelengths, - determining the optical power distribution over at least part of each of the at least two two- dimension representations of the lens element, and - characterizing the optical elements by comparing the at least two determined optical power distributions; for the advantages of improving the selective irradiation process (Vázquez [0103]) and allowing for more control (Vázquez [0059]).
As to claim 10, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 9.
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the at least two different wavelengths corresponds to the nominal wavelength of the diffractive lenslets.
Biteau, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a nominal wavelength (Biteau [0033]; [0161]; a wavelength of 589 nm) of the diffractive lenslets ([0109]; The plurality of optical elements 30 can be diffractive structures such as microlenses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Biteau to include a nominal wavelength of the diffractive lenslets; for the advantage of enabling the suppression or slow down the progress of myopia (Biteau [0004]).
Still lacking the limitation such as wherein one of the at least two different wavelengths corresponds to the nominal wavelength.
Biteau, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein one of the at least two different wavelengths corresponds to the nominal wavelength (Biteau abstract; The radiation is controlled for wavelength range. [0103]; Several methods can be used to control exposure of one or more lens substrate surfaces, including carefully controlling the effective wavelengths, plural, i.e. at least two different wavelengths. [0092]; For example, the wavelength range can be limited to a range of 350-380 nm. Therefore, one of the at least two different wavelengths can correspond to the nominal wavelength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Glasenapp to incorporate the teachings of Vázquez to include wherein one of the at least two different wavelengths corresponds to the nominal wavelength; for the advantages of improving the selective irradiation process (Vázquez [0103]) and allowing for more control (Vázquez [0059]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kemaya Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11 am – 8 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877