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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 13-15 have overcome each and every objection, U.S.C. 101 rejection and U.S.C. 102 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 February 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 13-15 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-15, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Regarding the U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant remarks that Glasenapp discloses standard spectacle lenses, including progressive lenses. In contrast to the present invention, Glasenapp does not disclose 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 (claim 1). Glasenapp does not disclose characterizing at least the part of the lens element within at least part of a two-dimension representation of the lens element by analyzing a determined optical power distribution. Glasenapp does not disclose micro-optical elements. The deflectometry method in Glasenapp is used to verify prescription lens properties, such as spherical power, cylinder, and prism, but not to analyze complex optical element structures, such as microlens arrays. Glasenapp lacks any disclosure of characterizing structured optical elements or microlens arrays. The present invention, on the other hand, specifically characterizes lenses with structured optical elements (e.g., microlens arrays, diffractive elements, diffusion dots), which are designed to control myopia progression. The characterization is not just about the refractive power of a single lens, but about the detailed properties of individual micro-optical elements. The present invention extracts statistical data on individual microlenses, such as peak optical power, width, symmetry, and area fraction. The present invention analyzes each micro-optical element separately. In short, Glasenapp does not perform localized optical element characterization and lacks any statistical characterization of optical elements such as microlens arrays. Glasenapp only evaluates overall refractive power. Guillot, Biteau, and Vazquez fail to cure the deficiencies in Glasenapp.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Glasenapp teaches characterizing at least the part of the lens element (i.e. prescription lens properties, as Applicant has mentioned, as well as optical power; please see Glassenapp claim 1 and para. [0089]) within said at least part of the two-dimension representation of the lens element (i.e. the display 24 with location Ptest object; please see Glassenapp para. [0089]-[0090]) by analyzing the determined optical power distribution (i.e. refractive power distribution; please see Glassenapp abstract and para. [0089]). This can be interpreted as performing localized optical element characterization and statistical characterization of optical elements. This can also be applied to structured optical elements and thus, the prior art references seem to be obviously combinable. Further, Examiner respectfully points out that the claim 1 limitations do not state e.g., microlens arrays, diffractive elements, diffusion dots. Also note that Guillot teaches the deficiencies in Glasenapp, regarding the claim 1 amendments. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to further limit the optical elements.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 on lines 12-13, “determining at least one characteristic of the manufactured lens element of step a)” should be corrected to say –characterizing at least part of the manufactured lens element of step a)-- to match the claim language of claim 1 on which it depends.
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 1-7, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp et al. (US20180120198A1) from the IDS, hereinafter Glasenapp, in view of Guillot et al. (US12429710B2), hereinafter Guillot.
As to claim 1, Glasenapp teaches a method for characterizing at least part of a lens element adapted for a wearer (fig. 4; observer 94) and including 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),
the method comprising:
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).
However, Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose the deflectometry method performed by a deflectometry device comprising an image display device and an image acquisition device, the deflectometry method including a fringe deflectometry method including positioning the lens element to be characterized between the image display device and the image acquisition device, and observing, via the image acquisition device, black and white fringes scrolled on the image display device with a delay or acceleration which is related to a deviation of light rays caused locally by the lens element, the deviation of the light rays being an object of an algorithm that puts together a mapping of the lens element with color levels or grey levels proportional to the local optical power.
Guillot, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the deflectometry method performed by a deflectometry device comprising an image display device and an image acquisition device, the deflectometry method including a fringe deflectometry method (Guillot col. 7 ln. 10-13; fig. 3; “a fringe deflectometry method consists in positioning the lens element 10 to be characterized between an image display device 20 such as a screen and an image acquisition device 22 such as a camera) including
positioning the lens element to be characterized between the image display device and the image acquisition device (Guillot col. 7 ln. 10-13; fig. 3; “a fringe deflectometry method consists in positioning the lens element 10 to be characterized between an image display device 20 such as a screen and an image acquisition device 22 such as a camera),
and observing, via the image acquisition device, black and white fringes scrolled on the image display device with a delay or acceleration which is related to a deviation of light rays caused locally by the lens element (Guillot col. 7 ln. 13-17; fig. 3; “On the screen, black and white fringes are scrolled. Their scrolling is observed via the camera with a delay or acceleration which is related to the deviation of the light rays caused locally by the lens element 10”), the deviation of the light rays being an object of an algorithm that puts together a mapping of the lens element with color levels or grey levels proportional to the local optical power (Guillot col. 7 ln. 18-21; “The deviation of the light rays is the object of an algorithm that allows putting together a mapping of the lens element with color levels or grey levels proportional to the local optical power”).
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 deflectometry method performed by a deflectometry device comprising an image display device and an image acquisition device, the deflectometry method including a fringe deflectometry method including positioning the lens element to be characterized between the image display device and the image acquisition device, and observing, via the image acquisition device, black and white fringes scrolled on the image display device with a delay or acceleration which is related to a deviation of light rays caused locally by the lens element, the deviation of the light rays being an object of an algorithm that puts together a mapping of the lens element with color levels or grey levels proportional to the local optical power; for the advantage of increasing characterization accuracy (Guillot col. 7 ln. 26-28).
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
PNG
media_image4.png
553
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Guillot Fig. 3
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 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 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 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 one or more 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),
the surface of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution, the width value of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution, and the degree of symmetry of at least one peak of the determined optical power distribution.
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 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 13, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the lens element comprises a refraction area having a refractive power based on a 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) to correct 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 a method for checking a 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 including 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) 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”), the method comprising:
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);
and comparing the characteristics of the optical elements of the manufactured lens element with the characterizing data 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).
As to claim 15, Glasenapp teaches a method, each of the lens elements 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) 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”), the method comprising 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);
and 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; the method comprising the steps 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 to manufacture 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 steps 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 to manufacture 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; the method comprising the steps 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 to manufacture 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 in view of Guillot, further in view of Biteau (US 20230152496 A1).
As to claim 8, Glasenapp teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Glasenapp in view of Guillot 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 in view of Guillot 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 in view of Guillot 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 in view of Guillot 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 in view of Guillot and 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 Guillot and Biteau does not explicitly disclose obtaining at least two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element using the 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 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 the 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 Guillot and Biteau to incorporate the teachings of Vázquez to include obtaining at least two two-dimension representations of the local optical power of at least part of the lens element using the 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 in view of Guillot does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the at least two different wavelengths corresponds to a 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 in view of Guillot 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.
Vázquez, 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 (Vázquez 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 in view of Guillot and Biteau 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights