DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 09/04/2024, 10/17/2024, and 03/16/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0329429 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Guillot).
As to claim 1, Guillot teaches a spectacle lens (Guillot, Figs. 1-2, 10, paragraph [0138], “lens element 10”), wherein
at least one of two optical surfaces respectively located on an object side and an eyeball side has (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, F2, paragraph [0139], “object side surface F1… eye side surface F2”):
a base surface configured to cause a light beam incident from the object side to be emitted toward the eyeball side, and to converge at a position A on a retina of an eyeball (Guillot, Fig. 2, 12, paragraph [0145], “a refraction area 12 has a refractive power Px based on the prescription of the eye,” thus focuses the light on the retina); and
a plurality of defocus surfaces configured to cause a light beam incident from the object side to be emitted toward the eyeball side, and to converge at a position B that is farther away from the object side than the position A is (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraph [0173], the optical elements 14 are configured to focus light behind the retina of the eye of the wearer),
the base surface is a convex surface (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, 12, paragraph [0139], “the first surface may comprise an object side surface F1 formed as a convex curved surface), and
at least one of the defocus surfaces is a non-concave surface (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, 16, paragraphs [0171]-[0173], as shown in figure 2 the optical elements 14 and the central zone 16 have a convex surface).
As to claim 3, Guillot teaches the spectacle lens according to claim 1, wherein a curvature of the non-concave surface is 0 or more (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, 16, as shown in figure 2 the non-concave surface 16 is convex, thus is greater than 0), and a curvature of the convex surface is larger than the curvature of the non-concave surface (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, 16, in figure 2 the curvature of the convex surface 12 is shown to have a curvature larger than the non-concave surface 16 as the curvature increases from the center toward the periphery of the lens element 10).
As to claim 4, Guillot teaches the spectacle lens according to claim 1, wherein the defocus power of the defocus surfaces is configured to be different between a central area located on a center side of the lens and a peripheral area (Guillot, Figs. 1 and 3, 14, 16, paragraphs [0074] and [0235], the optical elements 14 may be configured so that along any horizontal section of the lens element the mean sphere of the optical elements varies, for example increases from the intersection of said horizontal section with the meridian towards the peripheral part of the lens element) including at least an area located on an upper side when the lens is worn (Guillot, Figs. 1 and 3, 14, 16, paragraph [0205], “the optical power of optical elements 14 in the upper side of the lens element may be different from the optical power of optical elements in the lower side of the lens element”).
As to claim 6, Guillot teaches the spectacle lens according to claim 1, wherein the base surface and the defocus surfaces are provided on the optical surface located on the object side (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraph [0250], “the optical elements 14 may be located on the back surface of the lens element. The back surface of the lens element corresponds to the eye side F2 of the lens element facing towards the eye”).
As to claim 7, Guillot teaches a design method of a spectacle lens (Guillot, Figs. 1, 2 and 9, 10, paragraph [0133], a method for providing a lens element 10), the method comprising
a step of designing at least one of two optical surfaces respectively located on an object side and an eyeball side to have (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, F2, paragraph [0139], “object side surface F1… eye side surface F2”): a base surface configured to cause a light beam incident from the object side to be emitted toward the eyeball side, and to converge at a position A on a retina of an eyeball (Guillot, Fig. 2, 12, paragraph [0145], “a refraction area 12 has a refractive power Px based on the prescription of the eye,” thus focuses the light on the retina); and a plurality of defocus surfaces configured to cause a light beam incident from the object side to be emitted toward the eyeball side, and to converge at a position B that is farther away from the object side than the position A is (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraph [0173], the optical elements 14 are configured to focus light behind the retina of the eye of the wearer), wherein,
in the step of designing the optical surface, the base surface is designed as a convex surface (Guillot, Fig. 2, F1, 12, paragraph [0139], “the first surface may comprise an object side surface F1 formed as a convex curved surface), and at least one of the defocus surfaces is designed as a non-concave surface (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, 16, paragraphs [0171]-[0173], as shown in figure 2 the optical elements 14 and the central zone 16 have a convex surface).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0329429 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Guillot).
As to claim 2, Guillot teaches the spectacle lens according to claim 1, wherein a power Pb of the base surface and a defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces satisfy a relationship Ps < -0.25 (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraph [0180], the optical power of the microlenses is preferably between 0.1 D and 3 D in absolute value, thus the defocus power is in a range from -3 D to 3 D which includes -0.25 D), and Pb + Ps ≥ 0 (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraphs [0018]-[0019] and [0163], “second refractive power Pp different from the prescribed refractive power Px. In the sense of the invention, the two refractive powers are considered different when the difference between said refractive powers is greater than or equal to 0.5 D,” thus the sum Pb + Ps can range from -3.5 D to 3.5 D).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces such that Ps < -0.25 and Pb + Ps ≥ 0, which overlaps the disclosed ranges of -3 D ≤ Ps ≤ 3 D and -3.5 D ≤ Pb + Ps ≤ 3.5 D, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces are art recognized results effective variables in that the power Pb (refractive power Px) and the defocus power Ps (second refractive power Pp) are prescribed to compensate a myopia and/or hyperopia of the eye of the wearer as taught by Guillot, paragraphs [0164]-[0165]. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the power Pb (refractive power Px) and the defocus power Ps (second refractive power Pp) are prescribed to compensate a myopia and/or hyperopia of the eye of the wearer (Guillot, paragraphs [0164]-[0165]).
As to claim 5, Guillot teaches the spectacle lens according to claim 4, wherein a power Pb of the base surface and a defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces in the central area, and a power Pb' of the base surface and a defocus power Ps' of the defocus surfaces in the peripheral area satisfy a relationship Pb'+ Ps'> Pb+ Ps ≥ 0 (Guillot, Fig. 2, 14, paragraph [0180], the optical power of the microlenses is preferably between 0.1 D and 3 D in absolute value, thus the defocus power is in a range from -3 D to 3 D, paragraphs [0018]-[0019] and [0163], “second refractive power Pp different from the prescribed refractive power Px. In the sense of the invention, the two refractive powers are considered different when the difference between said refractive powers is greater than or equal to 0.5 D,” thus the sum Pb + Ps can range from -3.5 D to 3.5 D which includes Pb+ Ps ≥ 0. paragraph [0235], the optical elements 14 may be configured so that along any horizontal section of the lens element the mean sphere of the optical elements varies, for example increases from the intersection of said horizontal section with the meridian towards the peripheral part of the lens element, thus Ps’ is greater than Ps which results in Pb'+ Ps'> Pb+ Ps ≥ 0).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces such that Pb'+ Ps'> Pb+ Ps ≥ 0, which overlaps the disclosed ranges of and -3.5 D ≤ Pb + Ps ≤ 3.5 D, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces are art recognized results effective variables in that the power Pb (refractive power Px) and the defocus power Ps (second refractive power Pp) are prescribed to compensate a myopia and/or hyperopia of the eye of the wearer as taught by Guillot, paragraphs [0164]-[0165]. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the power Pb of the base surface and the defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the power Pb (refractive power Px) and the defocus power Ps (second refractive power Pp) are prescribed to compensate a myopia and/or hyperopia of the eye of the wearer (Guillot, paragraphs [0164]-[0165]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights