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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 5/06/2024. The Applicant has filed a certified copy of the CN202410551883.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, which has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 9/23/2024 are accepted to by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The Claims 1-10 are objected because of the following informalities; the claims have a plurality of elements in the claim language which are not separated by line indentations. In the claim language, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, a plurality of elements, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i)." See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 109581690, Examiner provided machine translation), in view of Deng et al. (CN 116880085, Examiner provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches an orthokeratology lens (refer to CN 109581690), comprising a base curve zone (central optical zone 21, Fig. 9), and a reverse curve zone (zone 22, Fig. 9), an adaptation curve zone (zone 23), and a peripheral curve zone (zone 24) that are successively formed outward from a periphery of the base curve zone (zones 22, 23 and 24 are formed outward from a periphery of the base curve zone 21, Fig. 9), cornea shaping lens [page 5 of machine Translation], lens center as the center of the direction of corner, [page 9 of MT],
Wei doesn’t explicitly teach
wherein a space defined between the reverse curve zone and a cornea varies periodically in a circumferential direction, and comprises small spaces and large spaces that are cyclically and alternately disposed.
Wei and Deng are related as optical lenses.
Deng teaches a space defined between the reverse curve zone and a cornea varies periodically in a circumferential direction, and comprises small spaces and large spaces that are cyclically and alternately disposed (Figs. 1-4, contact lens 100 according to the present disclosure includes an optical region 1 composed of a vision correction region 10 and a vision control region 20, and a non-optical region 13, [page 7 of machine translation], first correction region 11 located in the central region of the contact lens 100 equivalent to central zone; vision control region 20 includes a first control region 21, equivalent to reverse curve zone; a cornea is the center that covers the iris and pupil, Fig. 1 shows zone 21 and a cornea varies periodically in a circumferential direction and comprises small spaces and large spaces that are cyclically and alternately disposed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the lens of Wei to include a space defined between the reverse curve zone and a cornea varies periodically in a circumferential direction, and comprises small spaces and large spaces that are cyclically and alternately disposed as taught by Deng for the predictable advantage of providing a contact lens capable of suppressing the development of ametropia of the eye for a long time, as taught by Deng in [page 2 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claim 1 (see above), wherein an outer edge of the base curve zone is a circle (see outer Fig. 9, edge of the base curve zone 21 is a circle;), a radial distance from an outer edge of the reverse curve zone (zone 22) to a center point (O, Fig. 9) of the base curve zone (zone 21) varies periodically in the circumferential direction, to enable the reverse curve zone to have, in the circumferential direction (see cross section Fig. 10, 222 varies periodically in the circumferential direction), narrow edge zones and wide edge zones that are cyclically and alternately disposed (Fig. 9 edge 22, Fig. 10 shows 222/221 narrow edge zones and wide edge zones that are cyclically and alternately disposed), the narrow edge zone defines the small space, and the wide edge zone defines the large space (see Fig. 9 with respect to Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claim 1 (see above), wherein an outer edge of the reverse curve zone (22) is a circle (see outer Fig. 9, outer edge of the reverse curve zone 22 is a circle), a radial distance from an outer edge of the base curve zone (21, Fig. 9) to a center point of the reverse curve zone (O, Fig. 9) varies periodically in the circumferential direction (see cross section Fig. 10, 222 varies periodically in the circumferential direction), to enable the reverse curve zone to have, in the circumferential direction, narrow edge zones and wide edge zones that are cyclically and alternately disposed (see Fig. 10 with respect to Fig. 9; narrow edge zones and wide edge zones, 222/221, that are cyclically and alternately disposed), the narrow edge zone defines the small space, and the wide edge zone defines the large space (see Fig. 9 with respect to Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 6, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claims 2 and 5 (see above), Deng doesn’t explicitly teach the formula as claimed in 3 and 6. Deng teaches in Fig. 1, WRC represents a radial width of the reverse curve zone (21, Fig. 1) at an angle of θ, WRC1 represents a maximum radial width of the reverse curve zone (21 where width is maximum, Fig. 1), WRC2 represents a minimum radial width of the reverse curve zone (Fig. 1, 21 when width is minimum), n represents a number of cycles (Fig. 1 shows 4), and θ represents a radial angle rotated starting from a hour hand of three o'clock along an anticlockwise direction (theta is an angle by the claim language doesn’t give any quantification). Deng teaches a maximum radial width of the reverse curve zone WRC1, a minimum radial width of the reverse curve zone WRC2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art and no criticality has been established on the record, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of WRC1 and WRC2 to meet the above formula involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefits of optimizing radial widths of the reverse curve zone include to improve contact lens quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the radial widths relations with routine artisan skill so as to improve contact lens characteristics and meet the above formula to provide continuous and effective myopia suppression for patients with refractive errors [page 2 of MT].
With respect to claim 4, Dang teaches the orthokeratology lens according to claim 3, wherein n ≥ 1 (Dang teaches n=4, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claim 1 (see above), wherein outer edges of the base curve zone (21, Fig. 9) and the reverse curve zone (22) are both circles (see Fig. 9) whose center points are coincident with each other (lens center O point in the figure) as the circle center, [page 8 of MT.),
Deng teaches a surface, facing the cornea, of the reverse curve zone (zone 21) is a wave surface (see Fig. 1), the wave surface has a downtilt surface and an uptilt surface that periodically undulate in the circumferential direction (see S11 in Fig. 1), the downtilt surface defines the small space, and the uptilt surface defines the large space (see Fig. 1 surface S11).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claim 7 (see above), Deng teaches wherein a radial curvature radius of the wave surface varies periodically with a change in a circumferential angle (see Fig. 1 wave surface S11).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the modified Wei teaches the lens according to claims 8 and 9 (see above), Deng doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the radial curvature radius of the wave surface meets the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R(θ) represents a radial curvature radius of the wave surface at an angle of θ, Rmax represents a maximum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, Rmin represents a minimum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, n represents a number of circles, and θ = [0, 2*π]. Deng in Fig. 1 teaches a maximum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, Rmax, a minimum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, Rmin, n represents a number of circles, and θ = [0, 2*π]. Rmax, Rmin and the angle theta is not, by claim language tied to any governance of the lens surface shape or radius; each can be arbitrarily chosen to any quantities as no other quantification or reference point are yet established within the claim, and no criticality has been established. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art and no criticality has been established on the record, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefits of optimizing radial curvature radius of the wave surface include improved contact lens quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Rmax, Rmin and the angle theta relations of Dang with routine artisan skill so as to improve contact lens and met the above formula that can provide continuous and effective myopia suppression for patients with refractive errors [page 2 of MT].
With respect to claim 10, Dang teaches wherein n is odd or even (Dang teaches n=even, see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tung US 2005/0105046, Wang US 2021/0181529 and Spratt et a. US 2019/0258082, which disclose Orthokeratology/contact lenses.
Although, the prior art in record shows in Figures a maximum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, Rmax, a minimum radial curvature radius of the wave surface, Rmin, n represents a number of circles, no explicit measurement or quantitation is added for assessment. Adding any measurement or limits would overcome the claim 3, 6 and 9 rejections. Prior art in record doesn’t disclose few specific limitations from [0067] of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30 pm PST.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights