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.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 8/30/2024.
Amendments to claims 3-4, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-22, and 24-28, filed 8/30/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the title and the abstract, filed 8/30/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 8/30/2024 and 4/3/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of their failure to comply with at least 37 CFR 1.84(l), (m), and (p). FIGs. 8-16, 18-23, 25-29, 31-33, 35-37, 39-41, and 43-47, are especially compromised in terms of quality and legibility. Contributing issues include faded figures, contour plots with isolines/labels that are completely indiscernible, and axes and tick labels that do not comply with basic sizing requirements. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is generally unclear and grammatically deficient. It consists of a single lengthy sentence that is difficult to parse, particularly due to improper list structure, excessive coordination, and constant shifting of subject. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is further objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 8, line 2, “the image is less likely to be seen multiple” is nonidiomatic/ improper/unclear – but it may be corrected to read “the image is less likely to be seen as multiple images” or similar
In ¶ 8, lines 2-3, “the image is less likely to […], compared to a bifocal lens” is a faulty comparison and may be corrected by inserting “that of” prior to “a bifocal lens”
In ¶ 8, line 4, “Multiple vision is also called as occurrence of multiple images” is nonidiomatic/improper/unclear – but it may be corrected to read “Multiple vision is also known as the occurrence of multiple images”, “Multiple vision refers to the occurrence of multiple images”, “Multiple vision is the occurrence of multiple images”, or similar
In ¶ 20, line 3; ¶ 34, line 3; ¶ 78, line 6, a “front view” is referenced, while the rest of the specification instead refers to a “plan view”. It appears the two terms may be interchangeable/synonymous with one another. However, it is not precisely clear if this is indeed the case or if Examiner perhaps overlooked some distinction between the two “views”. Assuming they are synonymous, the lack of any indication that they correspond to one another, and the inconsistent use of terminology is generally improper and confusing.
In ¶ 58, it is not clear what it means for “the diameter of the incident pupil […] of a person” to be “adopted”
In ¶ 108, line 2 ; ¶ 123, lines 5, and ¶s 83, lines 3-18; and ¶ 143, there are spurious unpaired quotation marks, or paired marks whose purpose is unclear and whose use appears to be improper
Newlines creating new paragraphs are sporadically littered across the document; this also renders the paragraph numbering system rather inaccurate/meaningless
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant' s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, lines 6 and 9, and claim 16, lines 7 and 10, the periods are improper and should be replaced by some appropriate punctuation (e.g., semicolon) with a coordinating conjunction (e.g., “or”) following Condition 2. See MPEP 608.01(m) –
“Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 29, claim 1, lines 10 and 11; claim 14, lines 9 and 10; and claim 29, lines 10 and 11, each recite "the wearer" which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, each claim’s first occurrence of the limitation shall be read as “a wearer”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 29, claim 1, lines 16 and 19; claim 2, lines 5 and 6; claim 6, lines 4, 6, 13, and 15; claim 7, lines 4, 6, 9, and 11; claim 14, lines 15 and 18; claim 16, lines 6 and 7; claim 20, lines 4, 6, 13, and 15; claim 21, lines 4, 6, 9, and 11; and claim 29, lines 16 and 19, all recite “the lens” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the ophthalmic lens” as established on line 1 of claims 1, 14, and 29.
Regarding claims 14-28, the claims all recite some “method of designing an ophthalmic lens”, but not a single claim appears to have recited any design steps. The method has no specific bounds and the associated claims are all therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, in claim 9, line 2, and claim 23, line 2, the term “perfectly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “perfectly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is thus unclear what it means for the near-vision portion to be “perfectly circular”, nor is it clear what features, tolerances, etc. would permit a given shape to be considered “perfectly circular”.
Regarding claim 15, on lines 3-5, the term “perfect” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “perfect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is thus unclear what it means for the intermediate portion to be “transformed from a perfect circle”, nor is it clear what features, tolerances, etc. would permit a given shape to be considered a “perfect circle”.
Regarding claim 29, lines 1-2 recite “the ophthalmic lenses” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “ophthalmic lenses”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, 14, 16, 25, and 29, claim 1, lines 11-14; claim 2, line 4; claim 11, line 3; claim 14, lines 10-13; claim 16, line 5; claim 25, line 3; and claim 29, lines 11-14, each recite “the expected incident pupil diameter” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear what Applicant means by “expected”. Pupil diameters generally depend on local lighting conditions, target viewing distance, wearer biology, etc., and are normally “expected” to span a broad range of about 2-8(+) mm. It is thus unclear what “expected incident pupil” sizes are required by the claim (i.e. a single value? a range? if the latter, what is the span of relevant measurements?) and also unclear where the limits of the claim lie.
For examination purposes, the first instance of “the expected pupil diameter” in claims 1, 14, and 29 shall all be read as “an expected pupil diameter”, and each “expected pupil diameter” shall be understood to invoke a diameter of 4.4 mm – per ¶ 58 of the specification and per claims 11 and 25.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 29, claim 1, line 10; claim 14, line 9; and claim 29, line 10 each recite “the pupil center” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “a pupil center”.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 29, claim 1, line 10; claim 14, line 9; and claim 29, line 10 each recite “the pupil center” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “a pupil center”.
Regarding claims 15-28, claim 15, line 1; claim 16, line 1; claim 17, line 1; claim 18, line 1; and claim 19, line 1; claim 20, line 1; claim 21, line 1; claim 22, line 1; claim 23, line 1; claim 24, line 1; claim 25, line 1; claim 26, line 1; claim 27, line 1; and claim 28, lines 1, 3, and 4 all recite “an ophthalmic lens”. However, line 1 of claim 14 already recited “an ophthalmic lens”. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each “ophthalmic lens” refers to a common object or distinct ones. For examination purposes, each instance of “an ophthalmic lens” is understood to refer to a common object.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 16, and 17, in claim 2, line 9; claim 3, line 5; claim 16, line 10; and claim 17, line 6, the terms “wide” and “narrow” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “wide” and “narrow” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unclear what dimensions qualify (regions of) the intermediate portion as “a wide portion” or “a narrow portion”. For examination purposes, the “wide” and “narrow” portions are understood only to be meaningfully described as such relative to each other.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, in claim 3, lines 3-4, and claim 17, lines 4-5, the terms “long” and “short” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “long” and “short” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is therefore unclear what dimensions qualify (portions of) the intermediate portion as “long” or “short”. For examination purposes, the “long” and “short” portions are understood only to be meaningfully described as such relative to each other.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 16, and 17, in claim 2, line 8; claim 3, line 4; claim 16, line 9; and claim 17, line 5 each recite “the band-like region in the ring of the intermediate zone” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. Neither “ring” nor “band-like region” had been established for the intermediate zone (only a “ring shape” for the outer optical portion, per claims 1, 14, and 29) For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “a band-like region of the intermediate zone”.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, claim 9, lines 2-3, and claim 23, line 2-3 each recite a “front view” and a “plan view” which appears to be two different terms with for the same view – though it is not clear if this is indeed the case, or if Examiner overlooked some distinction between the two. Such inconsistent terminology would generally be improper and confusing on its own, but without assuming, it remains unclear whether the two are synonymous or not, rendering the claims indefinite. For examination, both “front” and “plan” views are understood to correspond to one another. See also Specification objections above.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, lines 2-4 only further recite “wherein a shape pattern […] differs for each rotation angle […] formed by a diameter […] and a plane constituting the mirror symmetry in plan view”. However, claim 5 already presumes the discrete symmetry planes established in the prior claim 4. And by definition, any shape that lacks pure radially symmetry (i.e. has only discrete symmetry planes) and is subject to rotations must be geometrically distinct at each rotational position prior to rotating past a symmetry plane. The recitation thus fails to provide claim 5 with any additional constraints that were not already present in claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-19, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perel and Schmulewitsch (US 20050062933 A1, hereinafter “Perel”).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 29, Perel discloses (see FIG. 1 and ¶s 88-108, describing a background embodiment and base features of multifocal/multirange contact lens 10; refer next to FIG. 2 and ¶s 109-113 detailing lens 50 whose operation “is generally similar to that of lens 10 (FIG. 1), such that parts of the lenses indicated by the same reference numerals in both lenses 50 and 10 are generally similar in construction and in operation” – ¶ 109) an ophthalmic lens (50):
an optical portion that includes a near-vision portion (central (circular) zone 24) having a near-vision power that corresponds to a near distance , a far-vision portion (second intermediate plus outer (annular) zones 16+18) having a far-vision power that corresponds to a distance that is farther than the near distance, and an annular intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) that connects the near-vision portion [(central zone 24) and the far-vision portion (second intermediate plus outer zones 16+18) to each other, a central optical portion (central zone 24) which is the near-vision portion (central zone 24) or the far-vision portion being arranged at the center and an outer optical portion (second intermediate plus outer zones 16+18) which is the far-vision portion (second intermediate plus outer zones 16+18) or the near-vision portion that is not arranged at the center being arranged in a ring shape along an outer edge (30) of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) (see also ¶s 16-17: “powers decreasing monotonically from a central to an outer zone of the lens […] enables a wearer of the lens to clearly see both near and far objects.”, “The central zone […] is implemented to correct near vision”),
wherein when the wearer wears the ophthalmic lens (50) with the pupil center of the wearer matching the optical center, the outer edge (28) of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) is within the expected incident pupil diameter (¶ 93: first intermediate zone 14 with an outer edge 28 […] has an external diameter D2 that is approximately 3.5 mm”) and the outer edge of the outer optical portion (second intermediate plus outer zones 16+18) is outside the expected incident pupil diameter (¶ 92: “outer annular zone 18 of surface 12 has […] an external diameter D-4 of approximately 9 mm”) (note: the expected pupil diameter is taken to be 4.4 mm – see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) above), and
within the expected incident pupil diameter, a far-vision power group (P3a, P4a) and a near-vision power group (P1a, P2a) that constitute a power distribution (P{1,2,3,4}a) of a portion A of the optical portion (i.e. including all zones 24+14+16+18) when the lens (50) is viewed in an X direction (i.e. viewed along axis 52) from the optical center toward the periphery, as well as the far-vision power group (P3b, P4b) and the near-vision power group (P1b, P2b) that constitute a power distribution (P{1,2,3,4}b) of a portion B of the optical portion (i.e. zones 24+14+16+18) when the lens (50) is viewed in a Y direction (i.e. viewed along axis 54) from the optical center toward the periphery, the Y direction (axis 54) being perpendicular to the X direction (axis 52) (¶ 110: “each zone 24, 14, 16, and 18, generates a first set of powers, P1a, P2a, P3a, and P4a along axis 52, and a second set of powers, P1b, P2b, P3b, and P4b, along axis 54”).
Perel does not explicitly disclose that, a ratio between the far-vision power group and a near-vision power group in the X direction is different from a ratio between the far-vision power group and the near-vision power group in the Y direction.
However, Perel does disclose (see ¶ 112) that each of (P1a – P1b), (P2a – P2b), (P3a – P3b), and (P4a – P4b) are typically set to be (approximately) equal to some astigmatic factor. Taking this astigmatic factor to be some δ, what this implies is that
P
1
a
P
3
a
=
δ
+
P
1
b
δ
+
P
3
b
;
P
1
a
P
4
a
=
δ
+
P
1
b
δ
+
P
4
b
and similarly for P1{a,b}
P2{a,b}-. Based on the above result, we find that the allegedly undisclosed limitation (which Examiner notes is automatically satisfied once one of the following conditions is met
P
1
a
P
3
a
≠
P
1
b
P
3
b
O
R
P
1
a
P
4
a
≠
P
1
b
P
4
b
or for P1{a,b}
P2{a,b}) is actually always satisfied for
δ
≠
0
. (Recall from ¶s 16-17, 92-112, regarding both contact lenses 10 and 50, that P---1(a,b) > P---2(a,b) > P---3(a,b) > P---4(a,b) are inequivalent by construction as they form a monotonic progression.)
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Perel produces a ratio between the far-vision power group and a near-vision power group in the X direction that is different from a ratio between the far-vision power group and the near-vision power group in the Y direction.
Further regarding claim 14, Perel discloses a method of designing the ophthalmic lens (Perel touches on forming/producing, or designing, the contact lens across their disclosure – see, e.g., ¶s 58-82, 106, 123-125)
Further regarding claim 29, Perel discloses an ophthalmic lens set comprising a plurality of the ophthalmic lenses (¶ 122: “It will be appreciated that a multirange contact lens combining the principles described above with reference to both FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 may be implemented. Such a multirange lens is able to alter the peripheral vision and correct astigmatism of the wearer”. This quote directly sets forth additional lenses embodying the same qualities (e.g. optical power anisotropy) as those described for FIG. 2’s lens 50 (i.e. in combination with those described for FIG. 3’s lenses 76 ∋ {70, 72, 74, etc.}))
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel further discloses wherein one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(Condition 1) within the expected incident pupil diameter, a width of the outer optical portion in the portion A when the lens is viewed in the X direction is different from a width of the outer optical portion in the portion B when the lens is viewed in the Y direction.
(Condition 2) while Condition 1 is not satisfied, the band-like region in the ring of the intermediate portion has a wide portion and a narrow portion.
(Condition 3) while neither Condition 1 nor Condition 2 is satisfied, behavior of the change in the power in the X direction (i.e. along axis 52) is different from that in the Y direction (i.e. along axis 54) at least when the intermediate portion is viewed in the radial direction (¶ 110: “each zone 24, 14, 16, and 18, generates a first set of powers, P1a, P2a, P3a, and P4a along axis 52, and a second set of powers, P1b, P2b, P3b, and P4b, along axis 54”).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel, in the embodiment (lens 50) cited above, does not disclose wherein the intermediate portion has a portion in which the distance from its outer edge toward the optical center is long and a portion in which the distance from its outer edge toward the optical center is short, or the band-like region in the ring of the intermediate portion has a wide portion and a narrow portion.
Perel, in another embodiment (lens 70), discloses (see FIG. 3 and ¶s 114-125 detailing embodiments of lenses 76 ∋ {70, 72, 74} whose operation, again, “is generally similar to that of lens 10 (FIG. 1)”) wherein the intermediate portion has a portion in which the distance from its outer edge toward the optical center is long and a portion in which the distance from its outer edge toward the optical center is short, or the band-like region in the ring of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) has a wide portion and a narrow portion (FIG. 3: lens 70’s first intermediate zone 14 remains circular, but now it encloses an elliptical central zone 24 with a “major axis 82 in an approximately horizontal direction” (¶ 116); it is thus thicker along the vertical edges than along the horizontal edges).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel’s zone shapes in order to enhance peripheral vision and to help maintain lens alignment (Perel ¶s 115-116, 121).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel, in the embodiment (lens 50) cited above, does not disclose wherein the shape of the optical portion is mirror symmetric with respect to at least one and at most two planes including the optical center and the optical axis direction.
Perel, in another embodiment (lens 70), discloses (see FIG. 3 and ¶s 114-125 detailing embodiments of lenses 76 ∋ {70, 72, 74} whose operation, again, “is generally similar to that of lens 10 (FIG. 1)”) discloses wherein the shape of the optical portion (i.e. zones 24+14+16+18) is mirror symmetric with respect to at least one and at most two planes including the optical center and the optical axis direction (FIG. 3: lens 70’s edge 80 bounds the set of zones 24+14+16+18 that form the optical portion; because central zone 24 is elliptical with a “major axis 82 in an approximately horizontal direction” (¶ 116), the optical portion has two planes of symmetry – one extending horizontally and vertically across the page of FIG. 3).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel’s zone shapes in order to enhance peripheral vision and to help maintain lens alignment (Perel ¶s 115-116, 121).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 4.
Perel, in the other embodiment (lens 70) cited above, discloses wherein a shape pattern of at least the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) differs for each rotation angle within a predetermined range formed by a diameter extending from the optical center and a plane constituting the mirror symmetry in plan view. (The limitation is automatically satisfied merely by the presence of symmetry planes established in the previous claim 4. See also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) above.)
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel further discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 91):
wherein in the optical portion (i.e. zones 24+14+16+18), the far-vision portion (second intermediate plus outer zones 16+18) is arranged in a ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14), and the near-vision portion (central zone 24) is arranged along the inner edge of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) so as to include the optical center, and
an area of the near-vision portion (central zone 24) is 2.50 mm2 or more in plan view.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 8 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 22.
Perel further discloses (see FIG. 2) wherein the near-vision portion (central zone 24) is perfectly circular in plan view.
Perel, in the embodiment (lens 50) cited above, does not disclose the outer edge of the intermediate portion is elliptical in front view.
Perel, in other embodiments, discloses the outer edge (28) of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 24) is elliptical in front view. (¶s 116-117: “zone 24 is configured to have an oval edge 80. In one embodiment, edge 80 is typically approximately elliptical in shape”, “The principle of enhancing the peripheral vision by altering the shape of one or more of the edges of one or more of zones 24, 14, 16, and/or 18 to be non-circular may be advantageously applied in cases where a user is known to require a specific type of peripheral vision.”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel’s zone shapes in order to enhance peripheral vision and to help maintain lens alignment (Perel ¶s 115-116, 121).
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel further discloses wherein the expected incident pupil diameter is 4.4 mm (as already assumed in claims 1 and 14 above; see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b))
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 11 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel further discloses wherein the ophthalmic lens (50) is a contact lens (¶ 2: “The present invention relates generally to contact lenses”).
Regarding claim 15, Perel discloses the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel further discloses wherein the design is changed so that the outer edge (28) of the intermediate portion (first intermediate zone 14) is elliptical in plan view. (¶s 116-117: “zone 24 is configured to have an oval edge 80. In one embodiment, edge 80 is typically approximately elliptical in shape”, “The principle of enhancing the peripheral vision by altering the shape of one or more of the edges of one or more of zones 24, 14, 16, and/or 18 to be non-circular may be advantageously applied in cases where a user is known to require a specific type of peripheral vision.”).
Perel thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose that when the design is changed, an amount of decrease from the radius of the perfect circle to the minor axis length of the ellipse is greater than an amount of increase from the radius of the perfect circle to the major axis length of the ellipse. However, Examiner will note that this allegedly undisclosed limitation is trivially satisfied by any ellipse that would have been contained/circumscribed by the original circle.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel’s zone shapes in order to enhance peripheral vision and to help maintain lens alignment (Perel ¶s 115-116, 121).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to size the elliptical intermediate zone so that it would have been contained/circumscribed by the original circle, and to do so in order to accommodate wearer-specific ocular anatomy and ophthalmic needs – since it has been held that changes in size or shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 28, Perel discloses a method of manufacturing an ophthalmic lens, comprising:
a design step of designing an ophthalmic lens using the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14; and
a processing step of manufacturing the designed ophthalmic lens (50) using a processing device (¶ 106: “any contact lens process known in the art, such as, but not limited to, cutting on a lathe or molding.”)
Claims 6, 10, 13, 20, 24, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perel, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and in further view of Shimojo and Nakazawa (WO 2020075312 A1, hereinafter “Shimojo”).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel does not disclose:
wherein the intermediate portion includes a portion A1 in which a power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in the X direction, and the intermediate portion includes a portion A1' in which the power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in an X' direction from the optical center toward the periphery, the X' direction being exactly opposite to the X direction, the power being strengthened in the portion A1 and the portion A1' to be stronger than the far-vision power of the far-vision portion that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion or the near-vision power of the near-vision portion that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion,
the intermediate portion includes a portion B1 in which a power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in the Y direction, and the intermediate portion includes a portion B1' in which the power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in a Y' direction from the optical center toward the periphery, the Y' direction being exactly opposite to the Y direction, the power being strengthened in the portion B1 and the portion B1' to be stronger than the far-vision power of the far-vision portion that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion or the near-vision power of the near-vision portion that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion,
the portion A of the optical portion is also the portion A1 and the portion A1', and
the portion B of the optical portion is also the portion B1 and the portion B1'.
Perel and Shimojo commonly relate to ophthalmic lenses.
Shimojo discloses (see ¶s 1-6 and 75-86, FIGs. 1 and 4-5. FIG. 1 and ¶s 4-6 detail basic aspects of a conventional lens. FIGs. 4-5 and ¶ 75-90 onwards detail inventive embodiments whose “configuration in plan view is the same as in Figure 1” – ¶ 82. FIGs. 1 and 4 ae further annotated below):
wherein the intermediate portion (3) includes a portion A1 (A) in which a power is strengthened (i.e. grows more negative) and thereafter weakened (i.e. approaches zero) when the lens (multifocal contact lens 6) is viewed in an X direction, and the intermediate portion (3) includes a portion A1' (A’) in which the power is strengthened (i.e. grows more negative) and thereafter weakened (i.e. approaches zero) when the lens (multifocal contact lens 6) is viewed in an X' direction from the optical center (O) toward the periphery, the X' direction being exactly opposite to the X direction, the power being strengthened in the portion A1 (A) and the portion A1' (A’) to be stronger than the far-vision power of the far-vision portion (2) that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (3) or the near-vision power of the near-vision portion (1) that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (3) (note, per ¶ 30, that Shimojo’s disclosure captures embodiments where near-/far-vision portions may occupy the intermediate portion’s interior/exterior and vice versa),
PNG
media_image1.png
527
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
489
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 1 and 4 of Shimojo are annotated to highlight various features)]
the intermediate portion (3) includes a portion B1 (A) in which a power is strengthened (i.e. grows more negative) and thereafter weakened (i.e. approaches zero) when the lens (multifocal contact lens 6) is viewed in the Y direction, and the intermediate portion (3) includes a portion B1' (A’) in which the power is strengthened (i.e. grows more negative) and thereafter weakened (i.e. approaches zero) when the lens (multifocal contact lens 6) is viewed in a Y' direction from the optical center (O) toward the periphery, the Y' direction being exactly opposite to the Y direction, the power being strengthened in the portion Bl (A) and the portion B1' (A’) to be stronger than the far-vision power of the far-vision portion (2) that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (3) or the near-vision power of the near-vision portion (1) that is arranged in the ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (3) (note the current limitation simply reproduces that of item A already addressed above, with {A1,A1’} [Wingdings font/0xE0] {B1,B1’} and {X,X’} [Wingdings font/0xE0] {Y,Y’}; note also that while Shimojo’s invention is radially symmetric, Perel already provided a reduced biplanar symmetry to pick out x and y axes),
the portion A of the optical portion (4) is also the portion A1 and the portion A1', and
the portion B of the optical portion (4) is also the portion B1 and the portion B1'.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel with the teachings of Shimojo, in order to reduce radial and circumferential curvatures, and to secure areas with reduced cylinder powers in the outer edges of the intermediate section for clearer imaging (Shimojo ¶s 15-28, 91).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel does not disclose wherein in the optical portion, the near-vision portion is arranged in a ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion, and the far-vision portion is arranged along the inner edge of the intermediate portion so as to include the optical center.
Perel and Shimojo commonly relate to ophthalmic lenses.
Shimojo discloses wherein in the optical portion, the near-vision portion (1) is arranged in a ring shape along the outer edge of the intermediate portion (3), and the far-vision portion (2) is arranged along the inner edge of the intermediate portion (3) so as to include the optical center (O) (note, per ¶ 30, that Shimojo’s disclosure captures embodiments where near-/far-vision portions may occupy the intermediate portion’s interior/exterior and vice versa).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel with the teachings of Shimojo, in order to adapt the multifocal lens to accommodate different wearers’ needs for personally suited near-/far-vision balance and corresponding allocation of optical powers in the central or outer zones of the lens.
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel does not disclose wherein the ophthalmic lens is an intraocular lens.
Perel and Shimojo commonly relate to ophthalmic lenses.
Shimojo discloses wherein the ophthalmic lens is an intraocular lens. (¶s 1-4: “This invention relates to an ophthalmic lens […] Examples of ophthalmic lenses include contact lenses and intraocular lenses”, “we will refer to them as multifocal contact lenses”. Thus, while the ophthalmic lens is often taken as a contact lens for exemplary/ discussion purposes, Shimojo’s teachings more generally apply to ophthalmic lenses that include intraocular lenses as well.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel with the teachings of Shimojo, in order to develop intraocular lenses for permanent/implanted vision correction.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perel, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and in further view Shimojyou and Nakazawa (EP 3575858 A1, hereinafter “Shimojyou”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Perel discloses the ophthalmic lens according to claim 1 and the method of designing an ophthalmic lens according to claim 14.
Perel does not disclose:
wherein the central optical portion includes a portion A2 in which a power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in the X direction, and the central optical portion includes a portion A2' in which the power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in an X' direction from the optical center toward the periphery, the X' direction being exactly opposite to the X direction,
the central optical portion includes a portion B2 in which a power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in the Y direction, and the central optical portion includes a portion B2' in which the power is strengthened and thereafter weakened when the lens is viewed in a Y' direction from the optical center toward the periphery, the Y' direction being exactly opposite to the Y direction,
the portion A of the optical portion is also the portion A2 and the portion A2', and
the portion B of the optical portion is also the portion B2 and the portion B2'.
Perel and Shimojyou commonly relate to ophthalmic lenses
Shimojyou discloses (see ¶s 1-17 and 58-73, FIGs. 1, 4(a-b)):
wherein the central optical portion (near portion 1) includes a portion A2 (A) in which a power is strengthened (“intensified”) and thereafter weakened when the lens (multifocal contact lens 5) is viewed in the X direction, and the central optical portion (near portion 1) includes a portion A2' (A’) in which the power is strengthened (“intensified”) and thereafter weakened when the lens (multifocal contact lens 5) is viewed in an X' direction from the optical center (O) toward the periphery, the X' direction being exactly opposite to the X direction,
the central optical portion (near portion 1) includes a portion B2 (A) in which a power is strengthened (“intensified”) and thereafter weakened when the lens (multifocal contact lens 5) is viewed in the Y direction, and the central optical portion (near portion 1) includes a portion B2' (A’) in which the power is strengthened (“intensified”) and thereafter weakened when the lens (multifocal contact lens 5) is viewed in a Y' direction from the optical center (O) toward the periphery, the Y' direction being exactly opposite to the Y direction (note the current limitation simply reproduces that of item A already addressed above, with {A2,A2’} [Wingdings font/0xE0] {B2,B2’} and {X,X’} [Wingdings font/0xE0] {Y,Y’}; note also that while Shimojyou’s invention is radially symmetric, Perel already provided a reduced biplanar symmetry to pick out x and y axes),
the portion A of the optical portion (3) is also the portion A2 and the portion A2', and
the portion B of the optical portion (3) is also the portion B2 and the portion B2'.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Perel with the teachings of Shimojyou, in order to keep good balance between the central and outer optical portions, ensure that the central optical portion is sufficiently powered, and ensure that the outer optical portion is wide enough (Shimojyou ¶ 14, 73).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights