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 07/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 16-17 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1-17 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new prior art reference found in an updated search necessitated by the amendments made to the claims (see Saha, US 2023/0031417, as applied in the rejections below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6, 13 and 15 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 6, 13 and 15: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation "the at least one disrupted part" in each of these claims. The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of at least one disrupted part making it unclear as to what element the limitation is making reference to. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saha et al. (US 2023/0031417).
As to claims 1 and 10: Saha discloses the claimed method for additive manufacturing an ophthalmic lens (i.e., method of manufacturing an ophthalmic lens) (Saha at [0027], [0056]-[0058]), the method comprising:
creating a plurality of disrupted parts in a pattern surrounding a central portion of the ophthalmic lens free from the disrupted parts (i.e., film 200, for applying to an ophthalmic lens includes a plurality of gradient index, GRIN, optical elements, each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index; the GRIN optical elements 202 are included in annular region 206 and arranged in a regular pattern within 206; and central region 208 is surrounded by annular region 206, where central region 208 does not contain any GRIN optical elements 202) (Saha at [0030], [0059], [0060], [0074], FIG. 2A),
each of the disrupted parts having a disrupted refractive index variation (i.e., each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index) (Saha at [0030], [0036]),
the disrupted parts being smaller than 1 mm3 (i.e., each of the GRIN optical elements has a volume of between 100 µm3 to 3 mm3) (Saha at [0038]),
the disrupted parts being located in a depth of the ophthalmic lens or on a surface of the ophthalmic lens (i.e., film 200 is applied to an anterior surface of the lens such that it covers the entire surface of the lens) (Saha at [0046], [0070]),
the disrupted refractive index variation resulting in a scattering of a light crossing the disrupted part (i.e., at least one GRIN optical elements may give rise to additional scattering of light that falls incident on the GRIN optical element) (Saha at [0007], [0032]).
As to claim 16: Saha discloses the claimed method for additive manufacturing an ophthalmic lens (i.e., method of manufacturing an ophthalmic lens) (Saha at [0027], [0056]-[0058]), the manufacturing method comprising:
creating at least one disrupted part having a disrupted refractive index variation (i.e., film 200, for applying to an ophthalmic lens includes a plurality of gradient index, GRIN, optical elements, each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index; the GRIN optical elements 202 are included in annular region 206 and arranged in a regular pattern within 206; and central region 208 is surrounded by annular region 206, where central region 208 does not contain any GRIN optical elements 202) (Saha at [0030], [0059], [0060], [0074], FIG. 2A),
the at least one disrupted part being smaller than 1 mm3 (i.e., each of the GRIN optical elements has a volume of between 100 µm3 to 3 mm3) (Saha at [0038]),
the at least one disrupted part being located in a depth of the ophthalmic lens or on a surface of the ophthalmic lens (i.e., film 200 is applied to an anterior surface of the lens such that it covers the entire surface of the lens) (Saha at [0046], [0070]),
the disrupted refractive index variation resulting in a scattering of a light crossing the at least one disrupted part (i.e., at least one GRIN optical elements may give rise to additional scattering of light that falls incident on the GRIN optical element) (Saha at [0007], [0032]); and
creating other parts of the ophthalmic lens other than the at least one disrupted part, the other parts of the ophthalmic lens having a constant homogenous refractive index (i.e., film 200, for applying to an ophthalmic lens includes a plurality of gradient index, GRIN, optical elements, each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index; the GRIN optical elements 202 are included in annular region 206 and arranged in a regular pattern within 206; and central region 208 is surrounded by annular region 206, where central region 208 does not contain any GRIN optical elements 202) (Saha at [0030], [0059], [0060], [0074], FIG. 2A) (Saha at FIG. 2A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Quere et al. (US 2016/0101573).
As to claim 2: Saha discloses the method of claim 1. Saha discloses the photocurable film 200 having a particular thickness and being applied to the surface of a lens (Saha at [0055], FIGs. 2A-2B); though, Saha fails to disclose the claimed method further comprising manufacturing a plurality of layers of a curable material to create the disrupted parts.
However, Quere teaches a process for manufacturing a ophthalmic lens having at least one optical function, the process including an additive manufacturing machine 1 configured to deposit juxtaposed a plurality of predetermined volume elements forming superposed layers, or layer-by-layer deposition, of at least one material so as to form the ophthalmic lens 10 (Quere at [0001], [0002], [0067], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the additive manufacturing machine to form the ophthalmic lens having at least one optical function, using layer-by-layer deposition, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing ophthalmic lenses given the discussion of Quere above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 3: Saha and Quere disclose the method of claim 2. Quere further reads on the claimed wherein the layers of the plurality of layers are nearly perpendicular or parallel to an axis normal to a front face of the ophthalmic lens at a top point of the front face (Quere at Fig. 2).
As to claim 7: Saha and Quere disclose the method of claim 2. Quere further reads on the claimed method further comprising: jetting a discontinuous layer of the curable material on a first area of a layer of the plurality of layers (Quere at [0099], [0112], [0118], Fig. 2, Fig. 4); jetting a continuous layer of the curable material on a second area of the layer (Quere at [0099], [0112], [0118],Fig. 2, Fig. 4); and curing the first discontinuous layer and the first continuous layer, the first area being included in the disrupted parts (Quere at [0099], [0112], [0118],Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As to claim 8: Saha and Quere disclose the method of claim 2. Quere further reads on the claimed wherein the layer is a first discontinuous layer, the continuous layer is a first continuous layer, and the method further comprises, when the first discontinuous layer and the first continuous layer are cured, jetting a second discontinuous layer of the curable material on a first area of a second layer of the plurality of layers, the first area of the second layer covering the first area of the first layer, jetting a second continuous layer of the curable material on a second area of the second layer, the second area of the second layer covering the second area of the first layer, and curing the second discontinuous layer and the second continuous layer, the first area of the second layer being included in the disrupted parts (Quere at [0099], [0112], [0118], Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As to claim 9: Saha and Quere disclose the method of claim 2. Quere further reads on the claimed wherein the manufacturing the plurality of layers forms a front side of the ophthalmic lens, a back side of the ophthalmic lens, a lateral side of the ophthalmic lens, and at least one protuberance extended from the front side, the back side or the lateral side and in direction of one of the other sides, and the method further comprises: filling an internal part of the ophthalmic lens with the curable material; and polymerizing the curable material filled in the internal part of the ophthalmic lens (Quere at [0088]-[0094], [0099], [0112], [0118], Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
As to claim 17: Saha discloses method of claim 16. Saha discloses the film and the lens being different materials (Saha at [0052]-[0053]); though, Saha fails to disclose the claimed wherein the at least one disrupted part and the other parts of the ophthalmic lens are created using a same curable material (Saha at [0035]).
However, Quere remains as introduced and applied in the rejection of claim 2, and Quere teaches the claimed wherein the at least one disrupted part and the other parts of the ophthalmic lens are created using a same curable material (Quere at [0001], [0002], [0067], Fig. 1, Fig. 2), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 10-11 and 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha et al. (US 2023/0031417) in view of Quere et al. (US 2016/0101573).
As to claim 10: Saha discloses the claimed manufacturing system configured to manufactur an ophthalmic lens (i.e., DLP system for forming photocurable film applied to ophthalmic lens) (Saha at [0056], [0058], [0073]), the manufacturing system comprising:
creating a plurality of disrupted parts in a pattern surrounding a central portion of the ophthalmiac lens free from the disrupted parts (i.e., film 200, for applying to an ophthalmic lens includes a plurality of gradient index, GRIN, optical elements, each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index; the GRIN optical elements 202 are included in annular region 206 and arranged in a regular pattern within 206; and central region 208 is surrounded by annular region 206, where central region 208 does not contain any GRIN optical elements 202) (Saha at [0030], [0059], [0060], [0074], FIG. 2A),
each of the disrupted parts having a disrupted refractive index variation (i.e., each of the GRIN optical elements having variation in refractive index) (Saha at [0030], [0036]),
the disrupted parts being smaller than 1 mm3 (i.e., each of the GRIN optical elements has a volume of between 100 µm3 to 3 mm3) (Saha at [0038]),
the disrupted parts being located in a depth of the ophthalmic lens or on a surface of the ophthalmic lens (i.e., film 200 is applied to an anterior surface of the lens such that it covers the entire surface of the lens) (Saha at [0046], [0070]),
the disrupted refractive index variation resulting in a scattering of a light crossing the disrupted part (i.e., at least one GRIN optical elements may give rise to additional scattering of light that falls incident on the GRIN optical element) (Saha at [0007], [0032]).
Though, Saha is silent to the manufacturing system comprising one or more processors. However, Quere teaches a process and machine for manufacturing a ophthalmic lens having at least one optical function, the additive manufacturing machine 1 including a command/control unit 2 provided with a data processing system comprising a microprocessor 3 to load and store software/computer programs allowing the additive manufacturing machine to be configured to deposit juxtaposed a plurality of predetermined volume elements forming superposed layers, or layer-by-layer deposition, of at least one material so as to form the ophthalmic lens 10 (Quere at [0001], [0002], [0067], [0075], Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the additive manufacturing machine having a processor to form the ophthalmic lens, as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing ophthalmic lenses given the discussion of Quere above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 11: Saha and Quere disclose the method of claim 2. Quere further reads on the claimed wherein the one or more processors is configured to manufacture a plurality of layers of a layers of a curable material to create the disrupted parts (Quere at [0001], [0002], [0067], Fig. 1).
As to claim 15: Saha and Quere disclose the manufacturing system of claim 10. Quere further reads on the claimed wherein the one or more processors is configured to: jet a first discontinuous layer of the curable material on a first area of a first layer of the plurality of layers, jet a first continuous layer of the curable material on a second area of the first layer, and cure the first discontinuous layer and the first continuous layer, the first area of the first layer being included in the at least one disrupted part, the one or more processors further being configured, when the first discontinuous layer are cures, to: jet a second discontinuous layer of the curable material on a first area of the second layer, the first area of the second layer covering the first area of the first layer, jet a second continuous layer of the curable material on a second area of the second layer, the second area of the second layer covering the second area of the first layer, and cure the second discontinuous layer and the second continuous layer, the first area of the second layer being included in the at least one disrupted part (Quere at [0099], [0112], [0118], Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a primary reason for indicating claims 4-6 and 12-14 as allowable is that the closest prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed method/manufacturing system also comprising: (i) curing a first area of a layer of the plurality of layers with a first image having a first contrast level, the first area being comprised in the disrupted parts; and curing a second area of the layer with a second image having a second contrast level, the second area being different from the first area, wherein the first contrast level being higher than a predetermined sharp threshold and the second contrast level being lower than a predetermined blurring threshold; (ii) curing a first area of a layer of the plurality of layers with a first image without shifting the first image during the curing, the first area being included in the disrupted parts; and curing a second area of the layer with a second image, by shifting the second image during the curing, the second area being different from the first area; and (iii) curing a first area of a first layer of the plurality of layers, by irradiating with a first curing surface energy, the first curing surface energy being higher than or equal to a solid energy threshold corresponding to an energy sufficient to cure a whole thickness of the first area; curing a second area of the first layer, by irradiating with a second curing surface energy, the second curing surface energy being strictly lower than the solid energy threshold and higher than an induction surface energy; and after the irradiation of the first layer, curing a first area of the second layer by irradiating the surface of the curable material with the first curing surface energy, the first area of the second layer covering the first area of the first layer; and curing a second area of the second layer with at least a third curing surface energy, third curing surface energy being higher than the induction surface energy, the third curing surface energy irradiating both the second area of the second layer and at least a portion of the second area of the first layer, the sum of the second curing surface energy and the third curing surface energy received by second area of the first layer being sufficient to cure the second area of the first layer, the second area of the second layer covering the second area of the first layer, the first area of the first layer being included in the disrupted parts, the first area of the second layer being included in the disrupted parts the induction surface energy being a curing surface energy above which a polymerization process of the curable material starts.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights