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 .
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, 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(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. US 2022/0082864.
Regarding claim 1, Qi teaches an eyeglass lens (see para 0005 and 0173: spectacle lens) comprising:
two optical faces on an object side and an eyeball side (see para 0006 and 0174: light rays’ incident on an object-side face and exiting from an eyeball-side face),
at least one of which has a base surface configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position A on a retina of an eyeball (see Fig. 4 and para 0155: light that is incident in the object-side face 3 of the spectacle lens 1 i.e., the first area serving as the base focused in a retina at position A), and
a plurality of defocus surfaces configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position B further away from the object side than the position A (see para 0007 and 0175 and fig. 5: “a plurality of defocusing second areas configured to cause light rays to converge at a position B on the object side or a position C on the distal side relative to the position A”). Qi further teaches the base-surface power and defocus power concept because Qi discloses that defocusing power deriving from shape is calculated based on the curvature of the face of the micro convex portions or micro concave portions and the refractive index of the lens material (see para 0099). Qi further teaches a base-surface power corresponding to the claimed power Pb because Qi discloses a base curve of the first/base area, including a base curve of 3.0D (see para 0240). Qi also teaches a defocus power corresponding to the claimed defocus power Ps because Qi discloses defocusing power of the defocusing second areas, including an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5D (see para 0222, 0260 and 0273).
However, Qi does not expressly teach wherein a power Pb of the base surface and a defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces satisfy a relationship of −0.25 Ps<Pb<−Ps.
Nevertheless, Qi teaches that the hyperopia progression-suppressive embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with concave areas and replacing the object-side positions B with distal-side positions C (see para 0171). Qi also teaches that the concave areas may have a shape obtained by recessing the convex shape of the micro convex portions toward the opposite side, and that the descriptions of shapes, arrangements, and optical properties are provided by replacing convex with concave (see para 0182). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a corresponding opposite sign defocus power for Qi’s concave hyperopia embodiment. In particular, Qi teaches a base curve of 3.0 D and an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5 D for the defocusing second areas. Because Qi teaches that the hyperopia embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with oppositely recess concave areas and replacing object-side focal positions with distal-side focal positions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the base-surface power Pb to about 3.0 D and set the defocus power Ps of the concave defocus surfaces to about -3.50 D. Using Pb = 3.00 D and Ps = -3.50 D: −0.25 Ps<Pb<−Ps = −0.25(-3.50) <3.0 <−(-3.50) = 0.875<3.00<3.50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qi, because it merely applies Qi’s disclosed defocus design to Qi’s expressly disclosed concave hyperopia embodiment, with the expected and predictable result of focusing the defocused light at the distal side relative to position A. Such reasoning is further supported by Qi’s teaching that het hyperopia embodiment used concave regions to achieve the opposite focusing condition from the convex/myopia embodiment.
Regarding claim 4, it is directed to a method for designing the eyeglass lens of claim 1 and recites substantially the same base surface, defocus surfaces, focal-position relationship, and Pb/Ps relationship as claim 1 in method form. Qi teaches a method for designing a spectacle lens (see para 0165). Accordingly, claim 4 is merely the method/design counterpart of claim 1 and would have been obvious over Qi for the same reason set for above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. US 2022/0082864 in view of Toda et al. US 2010/0134752.
Regarding claim 2, Qi teaches an eyeglass lens (see para 0005 and 0173: spectacle lens) comprising:
two optical faces on an object side and an eyeball side (see para 0006 and 0174: light rays’ incident on an object-side face and exiting from an eyeball-side face),
at least one of which has a base surface configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position A on a retina of an eyeball (see Fig. 4 and para 0155: light that is incident in the object-side face 3 of the spectacle lens 1 i.e., the first area serving as the base focused in a retina at position A), and
a plurality of defocus surfaces configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position B further away from the object side than the position A (see para 0007 and 0175 and fig. 5: “a plurality of defocusing second areas configured to cause light rays to converge at a position B on the object side or a position C on the distal side relative to the position A”). Qi further teaches a base-surface power corresponding to the claimed power Pb because Qi discloses a base curve of the first/base area, including a base curve of 3.0D (see para 0240). Qi also teaches a defocus power corresponding to the claimed defocus power Ps because Qi discloses defocusing power of the defocusing second areas, including an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5D (see para 0222, 0260 and 0273).
However, Qi does not expressly teach wherein a power Pb of the base surface, a defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces, and a refractive index N of a lens substrate serving as a basis of the optical faces satisfy a relationship of Pb<−0.5(N−1)−Ps.
Nevertheless, Qi teaches that the hyperopia progression-suppressive embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with concave areas and replacing the object-side positions B with distal-side positions C (see para 0171). Qi also teaches that the concave areas may have a shape obtained by recessing the convex shape of the micro convex portions toward the opposite side, and that the descriptions of shapes, arrangements, and optical properties are provided by replacing convex with concave (see para 0182). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a corresponding opposite sign defocus power for Qi’s concave hyperopia embodiment. In particular, Qi teaches a base curve of 3.0 D and an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5 D for the defocusing second areas. Because Qi teaches that the hyperopia embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with oppositely recess concave areas and replacing object-side focal positions with distal-side focal positions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the base-surface power Pb to about 3.0 D and set the defocus power Ps of the concave defocus surfaces to about -3.50 D. Qi further teaches that the refractive index of the lens material is used in calculating defocusing power (see para 0099). Qi does not expressly disclose a specific numerical value for the refractive index N of the lens substrate. However, Toda teaches known refractive indices for plastic spectacle-lens substrates. In particular, Toda teaches that CR-39, which has been long used as a material for plastic spectacle lenses, has a refractive index of 1.5 (see Toda para 0006). Toda further teaches that the refractive index of plastic lens substrates had been increased from 1.5 to 1.56, 1.6, 1.67, 1.7, 1.74 and 1.76, and that plastic spectacle lenses of various refractive indexes were commercially available (see para 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one of the known plastic spectacle-lens substrate materials taught by Toa in Qi’s spectacle lens because Qi is directed to a spectacle lens and used the refractive index of the lens material in calculating defocusing power and Toda teaches commercially available plastic spectacle lens substrates having known refractive indices. Such selection would have been a routine choice of a known spectacle lens substrate material for its known purpose. For example, using Toda’s CR-39 refractive index of N = 1.5 together with Qi’s obvious values Pb = 3.0 D and Ps = -3.50 D: Pb<−0.5(N−1) −Ps = 3.0<−0.5(1.5−1) −(-3.5) = 3.0 < -0.25+3.5 = 3.0 < 3.25. Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Qi’s concave hyperopia spectacle lens using a known plastic spectacle lens substrate having a refractive index as taught by Toda, and the resulting lens would satisfy the claimed relationships.
Regarding claim 5, it is directed to a method for designing the eyeglass lens of claim 2 and recites substantially the same base surface, defocus surfaces, focal-position relationship, and Pb/Ps/N relationship as claim 2 in method form. Qi teaches a method for designing a spectacle lens (see para 0165). Accordingly, claim 5 is merely the method/design counterpart of claim 2 and would have been obvious over Qi for the same reason set for above with respect to claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. US 2022/0082864 in view of Matsuoka 2023/0129377.
Regarding claim 3, Qi teaches an eyeglass lens (see para 0005 and 0173: spectacle lens) comprising: two optical faces on an object side and an eyeball side (see para 0006 and 0174: light rays’ incident on an object-side face and exiting from an eyeball-side face),
at least one of which has a base surface configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position A on a retina of an eyeball (see Fig. 4 and para 0155: light that is incident in the object-side face 3 of the spectacle lens 1 i.e., the first area serving as the base focused in a retina at position A), and
a plurality of defocus surfaces configured to cause a luminous flux incident from the object side to exit to the eyeball side and converge to a position B further away from the object side than the position A (see para 0007 and 0175 and fig. 5: “a plurality of defocusing second areas configured to cause light rays to converge at a position B on the object side or a position C on the distal side relative to the position A”). Qi further teaches the base-surface power and defocus power concept because Qi discloses that defocusing power deriving from shape is calculated based on the curvature of the face of the micro convex portions or micro concave portions and the refractive index of the lens material (see para 0099). Qi further teaches a base-surface power corresponding to the claimed power Pb because Qi discloses a base curve of the first/base area, including a base curve of 3.0D (see para 0240). Qi also teaches a defocus power corresponding to the claimed defocus power Ps because Qi discloses defocusing power of the defocusing second areas, including an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5D (see para 0222, 0260 and 0273). However, Qi does not expressly teach wherein a power Pb of the base surface, a defocus power Ps of the defocus surfaces, an arrangement pitch L of the defocus surfaces, and a flat surface size φ of the defocus surfaces satisfy a relationship of (−Ps×φ2)/ L2 <Pb.
Nevertheless, Qi teaches that the hyperopia progression-suppressive embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with concave areas and replacing the object-side positions B with distal-side positions C (see para 0171). Qi also teaches that the concave areas may have a shape obtained by recessing the convex shape of the micro convex portions toward the opposite side, and that the descriptions of shapes, arrangements, and optical properties are provided by replacing convex with concave (see para 0182). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a corresponding opposite sign defocus power for Qi’s concave hyperopia embodiment. In particular, Qi teaches a base curve of 3.0 D and an actual defocusing power target value of 3.5 D for the defocusing second areas. Because Qi teaches that the hyperopia embodiment is obtained by replacing the convex areas with oppositely recess concave areas and replacing object-side focal positions with distal-side focal positions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the base-surface power Pb to about 3.0 D and set the defocus power Ps of the concave defocus surfaces to about -3.50 D.
Matsuoka teaches an arrangement pitch L of the defocus surfaces and a flat surface size of the defocus surfaces because Matsuoka discloses a spectacle lens having a plurality of segments, wherein each segment has a diameter D of 0.8, and the distance between adjacent segments L = 1.05 mm (see para 0088). Matsuoka further teaches that, when the segment has a circular shape in plan view, the center point of the segment may be the reference point for specifying the position where the segment is arranged (see para 0080). Thus, Matsuoka’s segment diameter D corresponds to the claimed flat surface size φ, and Matsuoka’s distance L between adjacent segments corresponds to the clamed arrangement pitch L. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known segment diameter and spacing taught by Matsuoka in Qi’s spectacle lens because both Qi and Matsuoka are directed to spectacle lens having plural defocus regions/segments for suppressing progression of refractive error. The size and spacing of the defocus surfaces are result-effective design parameters affecting the distribution, density, and optical effect of the defocus regions. Selecting known values for the size and spacing of the defocus surfaces would have been a routine design choice to arrange plural defocus surfaces over a spectacle lens. Using Pb = 3.0 D, Ps = -3.50 D, φ = 0.8 mm, and L = 1.05 mm: (−Ps×φ2)/L2<Pb = (-(-3.05) * 0.8-2)/<3.0 = 2.03 < 3.0. Accordingly, the claimed relationship is satisfied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure Qi’s concave hyperopia spectacle lens using the known segment diameter and adjacent segment spacing taught by Matsuoka, and the resulting lens would satisfy the claimed relationship.
Regarding claim 6, it is directed to a method for designing the eyeglass lens of claim 3 and recites substantially the same base surface, defocus surfaces, focal-position relationship, and Pb/Ps/L/ φ relationship as claim 3 in method form. Qi teaches a method for designing a spectacle lens (see para 0165). Accordingly, claim 6 is merely the method/design counterpart of claim 3 and would have been obvious over Qi for the same reason set for above with respect to claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights