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 § 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 5-7 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.
The term “less pronounced slope” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less pronounced” 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. Therefore, the different between “less pronounced” slopes and other types of “pronounced” slopes cannot be ascertained in the prior art. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the curved edge" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the linear slope" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bordbar et al, US 2022/0382075 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bordbar discloses a multifocal ophthalmic lens (100, Figs. 1-3, para [0017]-[0019]), comprising: an optic (102) having a base curvature corresponding to a base power (para [0019]); and a diffractive element (104), the diffractive element producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders (at least four different focal points corresponding to different diffractive order, 0, 1, 2, 3, etc, para [0021]), wherein the constructive interference produces a near focus, a distance focus, and an intermediate focus between the near focus and the distance focus (para [0021]), and wherein the diffractive element comprises a plurality of annular diffractive steps (echelletes, 110-118, Figs. 1-2, para [0019]), two or more annular diffractive steps defined by a profile having a curved slope and a peak (see Fig. 3 for profile with curved slope and peaks), and a diffraction efficiency of at least one of the diffractive orders is less than ten percent (para [0026]; first order diffraction is suppressed to less than 10%).
Regarding claim 2, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of annular diffractive steps have a curved slope, a peak, and a linear slope (see Fig. 3, para [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 2, wherein the plurality of annular diffractive steps comprises a repeating group of three echelettes (110-118, Fig. 3, para [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 3, wherein a first slope with a curved edge approaching a peak of one or more of the diffractive steps corresponds to a diffractive sag profile having at least four consecutive diffractive orders (paras [0020]-[0022], which discusses relationship between echelletes with curves and radial spacings or sag and the diffraction efficiencies of distance, intermediate, and near vision).
Regarding claim 5, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of annular diffractive steps has a less pronounced slope opposite the curved edge (Fig. 3, echelletes have linear slope on one side and curved on the opposite side, where the linear slope is equivalent to “less pronounced” slope).
Regarding claim 6, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the curved edge is facing a center of the multifocal ophthalmic lens (rZ1, rZ2, rZ3, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the linear slope is facing an outward edge of the multifocal ophthalmic lens (a1, a2, a3, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the lens is an intraocular lens (IOL) (para [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the at least four consecutive diffractive orders are (0, +1, +2, +3) (para [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 11, wherein the diffraction efficiency of the +1 diffractive order is suppressed (para [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the near focus corresponds to vision at 40 cm, and the intermediate focus corresponds to vision at 60 cm (para [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Bordbar discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein a total energy efficiency through the diffractive element is greater than 90% (para [0026]; total energy efficiency of all the orders can add up to greater than 90%).
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Faria Ribeiro et al, US 2023/0255750 A1
Regarding claim 1, Faria Ribeiro discloses a multifocal ophthalmic lens (Figs. 6A-9B), comprising: an optic (lens, para [0063]) having a base curvature (radius of curvature) corresponding to a base power; and a diffractive element (60, para [0063]), the diffractive element producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders, wherein the constructive interference produces a near focus, a distance focus, and an intermediate focus between the near focus and the distance focus (para [0067]), and wherein the diffractive element comprises a plurality of annular diffractive steps (echelettes 66), two or more annular diffractive steps defined by a profile having a curved slope and a peak (parabolic profile, para [0065]), and a diffraction efficiency of at least one of the diffractive orders is less than ten percent (see Figs. 6A-B, para [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of annular diffractive steps have a curved slope, a peak, and a linear slope (Fig. 6A, parabolic profile, para [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 2, wherein the plurality of annular diffractive steps comprises a repeating group of three echelettes (para [0064]; set 72 of three echelettes 74a, b, c).
Regarding claim 4, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 3, wherein a first slope with a curved edge approaching a peak of one or more of the diffractive steps corresponds to a diffractive sag profile having at least four consecutive diffractive orders (para [0064]; sag profile relates to the distance of the echelettes from center of lens or radius).
Regarding claim 5, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of annular diffractive steps has a less pronounced slope opposite the curved edge (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 6, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the curved edge is facing a center of the multifocal ophthalmic lens (74a, Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 7, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the linear slope is facing an outward edge of the multifocal ophthalmic lens (74b, Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 10, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the lens is an intraocular lens (IOL) (para [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the at least four consecutive diffractive orders are (0, +1, +2, +3) (para [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 11, wherein the diffraction efficiency of the +1 diffractive order is suppressed (para [0067], Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 13, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein the near focus corresponds to vision at 40 cm, and the intermediate focus corresponds to vision at 60 cm (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Faria Ribeiro discloses the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, wherein a total energy efficiency through the diffractive element is greater than 90% (Figs. 6A-B, para [0067]; the total sum of all the efficiencies between orders is greater than 90%).
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) 8, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordbar or Faria Ribeiro in view of Choi et al, US 2019/0224001 A1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Bordbar and Faria Ribeiro disclose the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 1, but are silent as to wherein a diffraction efficiency of the first diffractive order is between five percent and nine percent or wherein the diffraction efficiency of the first diffractive order is nine percent; or wherein: the diffraction efficiency of the zero-order diffraction is between 45% and 50%; the diffraction efficiency of the first-order diffraction is between 7% and 9%; the diffraction efficiency of the second-order diffraction is at least between 15% and 20%; and the diffraction efficiency of the third-order diffraction is between 19% and 23%. However, Choi, in the same field of art, multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses (para [0015]), teaches a lens (100) having an optic (104) with a base curvature (para [0016]) corresponding to a base power, a diffractive element (102), the diffractive element producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders (paras [0018]-[0020]), wherein the constructive interference produces a near focus, a distance focus, and an intermediate focus (para [0021]), and the diffractive element comprising a plurality of annular diffractive steps (three-step repeating pattern, para [0018]) and wherein a diffraction efficiency of the first diffractive order is between five percent and nine percent (Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Figs. 10-11, 1st order can be 5%, 3%, 7%, 6%, or 9%), and wherein the diffraction efficiency of the first diffractive order is nine percent (Fig. 10); and wherein: the diffraction efficiency of the zero-order diffraction is between 45% and 50%; the diffraction efficiency of the first-order diffraction is between 7% and 9%; the diffraction efficiency of the second-order diffraction is at least between 15% and 20%; and the diffraction efficiency of the third-order diffraction is between 19% and 23% (see Figs. 3-11 for the claimed ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffraction efficiency of the first order of Bordbar and/or Faria Ribeiro with the diffraction efficiency of the first order, zero order, second order and/or third orders as taught by Choi in order to provide the stated advantages of removing any perceived “holes” in vision range and providing improved continuity in intermediate distance range and providing a full range of vision for the user (paras [0021]-[0024]).
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordbar or Faria Ribeiro or Choi.
Regarding claim 16, Bordbar and Faria Ribeiro and Choi all disclose a multifocal ophthalmic lens (Bordbar 100, Figs. 1-3, para [0017]-[0019]; Faria Ribeiro para [0063]; Choi 100, para [0015]), comprising: an optic (Bordbar 102, para [0019]; Faria Ribeiro lens, para [0063]; Choi 104, para [0016]) having a base curvature (Bordbar para [0019]; Faria Ribeiro para [0063]; Choi para [0016]) corresponding to a base power; and a diffractive element (Bordbar 104, para [0021]; Faria Ribeiro 60 para [0063]; Choi 102 para [0018]), the diffractive element producing constructive interference in at least four consecutive diffractive orders (Bordbar para [0021]; Faria Ribeiro para [0065]; Choi para [0018]-[0021]), wherein the constructive interference produces a near focus, a distance focus, and an intermediate focus between the near focus and the distance focus (Bordbar para [0021]; Faria Ribeiro para [0067]; Choi para [0018]-[0021]), and wherein the diffractive element has a diffractive sag profile defined by an equation (Bordbar para [0026]; Faria Ribeiro para [0067]; Choi para [0018], Figs. 3-11), but does not explicitly disclose the equation sag(r,n)=w(S(n)+H(n)+x(r,n)∙A(n)+x(r,n)2∙B(n)+x(r,n)3∙C(n)) where r is a distance from an optic center, n is a zone id, w is a wave to millimeter conversion constant, H is a phase offset, x is calculated from r, A, B and C are amplitude coefficients with numerical values between -1 and +1, S(n) is the individual phase offset for each individual echelette.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the variables from Bordbar, Faria Ribeiro and/or Choi, which correspond to the variables in the equation as claimed to get the sag profile or distances of each of the diffractive steps from the center of the lens since calculating a known parameter would be routine optimization and lead to adjusting the diffractive step profile and the diffractive profile to adjust the quality of vision in the near, intermediate and distance foci and achieve the result of better overall vision (see Faria Ribeiro, para [0009]; Choi, para [0020]-[0021]; Bordbar, paras [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Bordbar and Faria Ribeiro and Choi as modified disclose the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 16, but are silent as to wherein x is calculated by equation xr,n=r2-Rn-12Rn2-Rn-12 where n is the index of the diffractive rings and Rn is the radius of the nth diffractive echelette; or wherein w is calculated by equation w=λ1000(RIL-RIM) where RIL is a refractive index of the lens and RIM is refractive index of a medium that comprises the multifocal ophthalmic lens.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the variables from Bordbar, Faria Ribeiro and/or Choi, which correspond to the variables in the equation as claimed to get the sag profile or distances of each of the diffractive steps from the center of the lens since calculating a known parameter would be routine optimization and lead to adjusting the diffractive step profile and the diffractive profile to adjust the quality of vision in the near, intermediate and distance foci and achieve the result of better overall vision (see Faria Ribeiro, para [0009]; Choi, para [0020]-[0021]; Bordbar, paras [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Bordbar and Faria Ribeiro and Choi as modified disclose the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 16, but are silent as to wherein the first-order diffraction has a diffraction efficiency of 8%. However, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the lens of Bordbar, Faria Ribeiro or Choi to have the diffraction efficiency of 8%, as it involves only adjusting the diffraction efficiency of the first order that is already being optimized for the overall vision efficiency (see Choi, Figs. 3-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diffraction efficiency of the first diffraction order of either Bordbar, Faria Ribeiro or Choi as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Bordbar and Faria Ribeiro and Choi as modified disclose the multifocal ophthalmic lens of claim 16, wherein the lens is an intraocular lens (IOL) (Bordbar para [0016], Faria para [para [0063]], Choi para [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M STRANSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 Barrett can be reached at (571)272-4647. 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.
/KATRINA M STRANSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights