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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/10/2025. Currently claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-24, 26-28, 31-40 are pending with claims 31-35 and 40 withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-11, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-23, 26 and 36-38 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Baranton
claim(s) 24 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Baranton in view of Hansen
claim(s) 27 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Baranton in view of Tedford
claim(s) 28 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Baranton in view of Argal
claim(s) 39 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Baranton in view of Tuan
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional reference of Zhou et al (US 20220107508) as outlined below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-23, 26, 28 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 20220107508) hereafter known as Zhou in view of Kubota et al (US 20210031051) hereafter known as Kubota.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
An optical system [see Fig. 4A-4B element 400 and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”] comprising
an ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light source transmitting ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light [see Fig. 4A-4B element 408 (i.e. artificial light source)…. and para 96… “micro-reticles 408” and para 216… “The micro-reticle pattern lines or the material around the micro-reticle pattern lines can be made from semi-transparent or organic light-emitting-diode-like-materials with either narrow spectral bandwidth single color band or broad spectral bandwidth multiple color band light emitting capabilities.”] and
a myopia control lens or optic [see Fig. 4A-4B element 402 and para 96… “spectacle lens 402” and abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression”], wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light source is located at a physical distance in front of the myopia control lens or optic such that the myopia control
lens or optic is located between the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light source and an eye of a subject [see Fig. 4B element 408 (i.e. element that is light source) relative to element 402 (i.e. lens) and the eyeball shown in that figure And para 96… “On the front surface 404, micro-reticles 408 are positioned deposited or embedded”],
wherein the myopia control lens or optic comprises
(a) a central zone [see abstract… “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction and distributed micro-reticle(s) and corresponding micro-lens(es) around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the spectacle.” And labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim],
(b) at least one peripheral zone or region that-is- surrounding and peripheral to the central zone [see abstract….“Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction and distributed micro-reticle(s) and corresponding micro-lens(es) around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the spectacle.” and labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim],
wherein the at least one peripheral zone comprises one or more curvatures, materials, or features, which are configured to defocus or scatter some or all of the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light that transmits through the at least one peripheral zone before it strikes one or more portions of a peripheral retina of the eye of the subject [see Fig. 4B element 410 and para 96… “micro-lenses 410 imprinted or molded or embedded there” and para 8… “micro-reticles and corresponding micro-lenses are distributed around the paracentral and/or peripheral region of a spectacle lens or lens combination with each micro-lens arranged in between its corresponding micro-reticle and the pupil of a wearer's eye. The micro-lens refracts the light rays from the micro-reticle such that when the micro-reticle is presented to the wearer's eye, at least along one direction, a sharply focused line of the reticle image is formed either substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by a wearer's eye) or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by the wearer's eye).” (i.e. refracting the light recites scattering as claimed)],
and (c) an outer front surface facing towards the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light source [see Fig. 4A-4B element 404 and para 96… “the front surface 404”], and an inner back surface facing towards the eye of the subject [see Fig. 4A-4B element 406 and para 96… “a back surface 406”],
wherein the ocular photo-bio-stimulation light transmits first through the outer front surface of the myopia control lens or optic, second through a thickness of the myopia control lens or optic, and third through the outer back surface of the myopia control lens or optic and wherein light wavelengths of the defocused or scattered ocular photo-bio-stimulation light that transmit through the at least one peripheral zone and strike the one or more portions of the peripheral retina of the eye of the subject [see Fig. 4B which shows rays (i.e. representing light transmitting) extending from element 408 through the elements as claimed to reach the retina as claimed],
However, Zhou is silent as to the wavelengths of light used. Therefore, Zhou fails to disclose the light rays “are within a light wavelength range of one or more of 450nm - 500nm, 480nm +/- 30nm, 530nm +/- 20nm, 650nm +/- 30nm, 630nm - 700nm, or 600nm - 700nm” as claimed”
Kubota discloses in the analogous art of eye devices that reduce myopia progression [see para 97… “FIGS. 1A and 1B depict spectacles 70 for the treatment of refractive error of the eye and suitable for incorporation in accordance with the present disclosure. Although reference is made to spectacles, the light sources can be provided on any vision device described herein to treat refractive error of the eye and to decrease myopia progression or reverse myopia,”] that a known light range of light used includes
Monochromatic and/or Polychromatic light within the range of 400nm-800nm [see para 13… “The light may comprise monochromatic or polychromatic light within a range from 400 nm to 800 nm.” Which shows capability to produce lights within any one of these ranges.].
Since Zhou is silent as to the wavelength of light used and is directed to reducing the progression of myopia and Kubota discloses that a range of 400-800 nm is a known range of light used to prevent the progression of myopia, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou’s light source to use a light within the 400-800 nm range similarly to that disclosed by Kubota as this is a known wavelength used in the helping to prevent the progression of myopia.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Kubota by specifically having Zhou in view of Kubota’s light source have a wavelength of 650 +/- 30 nm because this is a subset of ranges of wavelength light disclosed by Zhou in view of Kubota.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, para 8 of Zhou [see… “micro-reticles and corresponding micro-lenses are distributed around the paracentral and/or peripheral region of a spectacle lens or lens combination with each micro-lens arranged in between its corresponding micro-reticle and the pupil of a wearer's eye. The micro-lens refracts the light rays from the micro-reticle such that when the micro-reticle is presented to the wearer's eye, at least along one direction, a sharply focused line of the reticle image is formed either substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by a wearer's eye) or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by the wearer's eye).”] discloses the microlens (i.e. one or curvatures, materials or features) as myopically defocused within a desired range (i.e. a zone of defocus).
Regarding claim 3, para 9 of Zhou [see “The optical effect of the micro-lens is such that the micro-reticle is imaged by the combination of the micro-lens and all the other optical elements in the reticle imaging light path, including those of a wearer's eye, to form a micro-reticle image either substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by the eye), or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by the eye).”] discloses reticle images being myopically defocused within a desired range which is interpreted as one or more zones of defocus.
Regarding claims 4 and 28, see para 211 of Zhou [“In another embodiment, the micro-reticles and/or its local surrounding areas and/or the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the spectacle lens are colored to explore the most efficient color band or color contrast that will produce the strongest neurophysiological signals to slow down or stop eye elongation. The color filtering can be achieved through multiple layer dielectric coating as is done for standard optical bandpass or long pass or short pass filters or directly derived from the optical material like in the case of color glasses.”] which discloses the spectacle lens (i.e. including the myopia control lens) includes color filters which recites claims 4 and 28.
Regarding claim 6, see Fig. 4A-4B element 400A and para 96 of Zhou [see “FIG. 4A is a front view of the single vision correction spectacle”] which disclose spectacles and/or eyewear.
Regarding claims 7 and 19:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 and the light strikes one or more portions of the peripheral retina [see para 8 of Zhou… “Each micro-reticle and micro-lens pair is arranged such that the pair is lined up with the micro-reticle imaging light rays from the micro-reticle that pass through the micro-lens also pass through the pupil of a wearer's eye to land on the paracentral and/or peripheral retinal region of the wearer's eye.”] and “wherein the myopia control lens or optic further comprises one or more of, lenslets, aspheric lenslets, contiguous aspheric lenslets, honeycomb arrangement of lenslets, ringed arrangement of lenslets, optical power steps, Fresnel rings, nanoparticles, fluorescence nanoparticles, irregular outer surface topography, liquid crystal(s), electrochromic material, a microlens array, a micro-lenslet array, holographic optics, multiple islands of minus optical power, multiple islands of plus optical power, multiple zones or islands of defocus, quantum dots, a diffractive surface, alternating rings of focus and defocus, one or more zones of defocus, or the myopia control lens or optic with a filter(s)” as recited by claim 7 [see Fig. 4A-4B element 410 and para 96 of Zhou… “there are corresponding micro-lenses 410 imprinted or molded or embedded there.”]
However, Zhou in view of Kubota is silent as to the intensity of the light and therefore fails to disclose the light “is 300 lux or more” as recited by claim 7 or “wherein the ocular photo-biostimulation artificial light source transmits a light intensity of 300 lux or greater to the retina of the eye of the subject” as recited by claim 19.
Kubota further discloses that a known intensity for light that is used to treat myopia includes an intensity of 5000 lux (i.e. a light intensity of 300 lux or more as recited in claim 7 and a light intensity of 300 lux or greater as recited in claim 19) [see para 57… “The micro-displays and the micro-optic arrays are mounted immediately adjacent to each other on the same correction optic, separated by a fixed distance in order to project a bundle of rays to the pupil of the eye, at an orientation that it forms a myopically defocused image at a desired location on the retina as described herein.” and “micro-display may have a luminance within a range from 1 nit to 10,000 nits or 10 nits to 1000 nits, or from 100 lux to 5,000 lux, for example.” And para 69… “the inner surface of the contact lens is embedded with a set of four micro-displays coupled eye side with micro-lens arrays of the same size.”]
Since Zhou in view of Kubota is silent as to the light intensity and Kubota discloses a known intensity used to treat myopia (a condition Zhou in view of Kubota is directed to), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Kubota’s light source to have an intensity of 5000 lux similar to that disclosed by Kubota because this is a known intensity used to treat myopia.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12: see abstract of Zhou [see “Spectacles that control myopia progression have a central zone that achieves foveal vision correction and distributed micro-reticle(s) and corresponding micro-lens(es) around the paracentral and/or peripheral zone of the spectacle.”] and see para 31 of Zhou [see “the spectacle lens is designed in a similar manner as a conventional single vision correction lens for myopia correction or as a IRODR vision correction lens combination but with micro-reticles and micro-lenses already made around the paracentral and/or peripheral of the spectacle lens”] which discloses control myopia progression (i.e. control myopia and slow myopia progression as recited by claims 8 and 12). Also, myopia is understood to be caused by axial elongation and/or the size oof the choroid thickness , therefore slowing myopia progression is understood to include at the very least a slowdown or stoppage in increase of an axial length axial elongation and/or a choroid of the subject’s eye to become thicker thereby reciting claim 9.
Regarding claims 10, 13 and 21:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “wherein the ocular-photo biostimulation artificial light source is modulated or flickers.” as recited by claim 10, “further comprising one or more of: a fixation target, a timer, an alarm, a sound alarm, a vibration alarm, a light alarm, a light switch, wired or wireless communication to a remote third party, communication components, a computer processing unit, sensor(s), eye tracking, vision measurement, a lens, an optic, extended reality hardware, augmented reality hardware, mixed reality hardware, virtual reality hardware, enhanced reality hardware, a controller, a rechargeable battery, wired or wireless communication to a cell phone or mobile phone, software, enabled Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth, or biofeedback” as recited by claim 13, or “wherein the ocular photo-biostimulation light transmitted from the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light source is timed, intermittent, or pre-scheduled” as recited by claim 21.
Kubota further discloses a microcontroller that is configured to control light sources by functioning as a real time clock that controls treatment duration (i.e. light source is modulated as recited by claim 10, a timer as recited by claim 13, light source exposed to the retina is timed / at least capable of being timed as recited claim 21) to help customize the applied light myopic defocus to individual physiology and shape of retina [see para 95… “the duration and distribution of application of peripheral myopic defocus depends on individual physiology and the shape of the retina. In some embodiments, the contact lens 10 comprises a programmable processor such as a microcontroller unit (MCU) or application specific integrated circuitry (ASIC) for controlling the operation of the micro-displays 12. The contact lens 10 may comprise a real time clock to adjust the treatment duration and periodicity by the caregiver, and the treatment duration and periodicity may be provided throughout the treatment. In some embodiments, the caregiver tests whether nocturnal stimulation (sustained or repeated sequence of short pulses) has an efficacy for certain individuals.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhao in view of Kubota by including a microcontroller that is configured to control Zhao in view of Kubota light sources by functioning as a real time clock that controls treatment duration similarly to that of Kubota as this will allow a user to help customize the applied light myopic defocus to individual physiology and shape of retina.
Regarding claim 14 para 216 of Zhou [see “The micro-reticle pattern lines or the material around the micro-reticle pattern lines can be made from semi-transparent or organic light-emitting-diode-like-materials with either narrow spectral bandwidth single color band or broad spectral bandwidth multiple color band light emitting capabilities.”] disclose the light as including organic LED like materials which is interpreted as organic LEDs.
Regarding claim 15:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “wherein the ocular photo-biostimulation artificial light source is one or more of: physically separated from but connected to the myopia control lens or optic; physically separated from the myopia control lens or optic but supported by, attached to, housed in or on, or incorporated with, an eyewear frame comprising the myopia control lens or optic; or physically separated from and in optical communication with the myopia control lens or optic” as recited by claim 15.
Another embodiment of Zhou shown in Fig. 21 shows the light source (i.e. elements 2110) positioned on the eyewear frame (i.e. physically separated from the myopia control lens or optic but supported by, attached to, housed in or on, or incorporated with, an eyewear frame comprising the myopia control lens or optic) [see Fig. 21 and para 171-173… “In FIG. 21, the thicker solid hash patterns 2108 represent micro-reticles with the hash pattern lines aligned along the radial (or meridional) and the circumferential directions. The corresponding thinner line ellipses 2110 represent micro-lenses and are arranged between the micro-reticles and the eye pupil as part of the spectacle frame design.”] Additionally, Zhou discloses the scope is inclusive of variations or modifications of the different embodiments which is understood to be inclusive of combinations of different embodiments [see para 230-231].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Zhou in view of Kubota which relies on the embodiment where the light source is placed directly next to the control lens shown in Fig. 4A-4B of Zhou by placing the light source on the frame similar to the placement of elements 2110 shown in Fig. 21 of Kubota (i.e. thereby reciting claim 15) because this is a subcombination of different combinations disclosed by Zhou.
Regarding claims 16-17:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “wherein the ocular photo-biostimulation artificial light source is one or more of, a cell phone display, a cell phone case, an electronic display, a handheld instrument providing the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light, or a table-mounted instrument providing the ocular photo-bio-stimulation artificial light.” as recited by claim 16 or “wherein the ocular photo-biostimulation artificial light source is a see-through near eye display, a non-see-through near eye display, a see-through display, or a non-see-through display” as recited by claim 17.
Kubota further discloses spectacles [see Fig. 1A-1B element 70 and para 97… “spectacles 70”] that includes a transparent near eye display (i.e. see-through near eye display as recited in claim 17 and “electronic display” as recited in claim 16) mounted on a lens supported by eyeglass frame [see Fig. 1A-1B element 72 is the near eye display, 74 is the lens and 76 is the eyeglass frame and para 98… “The near eye displays 72 may be mounted to lenses 74. The lenses 74 may be spectacle lenses supported by eyeglass frame 76.” And para 107… “the near eye display comprises a transparent, flexible substrate that matches the curvature of the eyewear worn by the user.”] and that this near eye display has pixels that provide stimulation (i.e. light sources) for the purpose of providing stimulation at the appropriate eccentricity with respect to a patient’s line of sight [see Fig. 1A-1B element 94 and para 98… “The near eye display 72 can be programmed to selectively activate pixels 94, in order to provide peripheral stimulation to the retina, as described herein. … The selectively activatable pixels can be arranged to provide an appropriate eccentricity with respect to a line of sight of the patient, so as to provide peripheral retinal stimulation as described herein.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Zhou in view of Kubota by replacing the light sources with a transparent near eye display similar to the embodiment disclosed as element 70 in Fig. 1A-1B of Kubota (i.e. thereby reciting claims 16-17) because this would allow the user to better align stimulation relative to a user’s line of sight.
Regarding claim 18, see Fig. 4B element 410 and para 96 of Zhou [see “there are corresponding micro-lenses 410 imprinted or molded or embedded there”] which describe micro-lenses (i.e. a second lens) and which show rays directed through element 402 and element 408 (i.e. showing optical connection between the two).
Regarding claim 20, see para 9 of Zhou [see “The optical effect of the micro-lens is such that the micro-reticle is imaged by the combination of the micro-lens and all the other optical elements in the reticle imaging light path, including those of a wearer's eye, to form a micro-reticle image either substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by the eye), or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by the eye).”] which discloses reticle images (light) being myopically defocused on at least a portion the retina peripheral to a macula.
Regarding claims 22-23:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Zhou in view of Kubota disclose the micro-lenses (i.e. one or more curvatures, materials or features as) being as having focusing power on the order of 1000-100 diopters based on a focal length of 1-10 mm and that the peripheral zone on which the micro-lenses direct light will myopically defocus light on the retina. Thus, demonstrating a known relationship on which the light can be defocused on the retina to a specific desired range of diopters. [see para 202 of Zhou… “It should be noted that for a micro-lens with a focal length f from 1 mm to 10 mm, its optical focusing power is of the order of 1000 Diopter to 100 Diopter.” and para 9 of Zhou see “The optical effect of the micro-lens is such that the micro-reticle is imaged by the combination of the micro-lens and all the other optical elements in the reticle imaging light path, including those of a wearer's eye, to form a micro-reticle image either substantially on the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by the eye), or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by the eye).”]
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “wherein the one or more curvatures, materials, or features, are further configured to provide optical power that is of more minus optical power or less plus optical power than an optical power of the central zone of the myopia control lens or optic.” as recited by claim 22 or “one or more curvatures, materials, or features, are configured to provide optical power defocus within a range of +0.35D to +5.00D, or wherein the at least one peripheral zone of the myopia control lens or optic provides no optical power focus.” as recited by claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Kubota to achieve said claimed limitations of “wherein the one or more curvatures, materials, or features, are further configured to provide optical power that is of more minus optical power or less plus optical power than an optical power of the central zone of the myopia control lens or optic.” as recited by claim 22 or “one or more curvatures, materials, or features, are configured to provide optical power defocus within a range of +0.35D to +5.00D, or wherein the at least one peripheral zone of the myopia control lens or optic provides no optical power focus.” as recited by claim 23 because as explained above Zhou in view of Kubota discloses a known relationship between the focusing power and the focal length of the micro-lenses (i.e. one more curvature, materials or features) and a need for these micro-lenses to defocus the light; therefore, absent unpredictable results one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed features through routine experimentation through the application of known factors to achieve a known result when treating and/or preventing myopia.
Regarding claim 26, see labelled figure 4A of Zhou which shows second eyewear (frames) that houses spectacle lenses (i.e. first eyewear) as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36: see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim which shows the at least one peripheral zone surrounding as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 37-39:
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 outlined above.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota discloses stimulating the periphery of the retina and thus fails to disclose “a fixation target, wherein the fixation target is one or more of, moving, intermittingly moving, stationary, fixed, or still” as recited by claim 37 or “wherein the fixation target is one or more of, black, magenta, yellow, devoid of light, grey, red, orange, a spot, a solid colored object, a solid colored light, opaque, devoid of white light, non-ocular photo-bio-stimulation light, devoid of a light emitter that causes a reduction in a size of a pupil of the eye of the subject, a filter, or an area of grey or black surrounded by light or a lighter color than grey or black.” as recited by claim 38, or “a fixation target that forms a fixation target image, the fixation target image configured to partially or completely cover or strike a macula, a part of a macula, or a fovea, of the subject's eye” as recited by claim 39.
Another embodiment of Zhou shown in Fig. 18A discloses including two sets of micro-reticle pairs that produce an image designed for an unaccommodated state of an eye and another image for an accommodated state of the eye (i.e. a light source and a fixation target) [see Fig. 18A-18B element 1808 with element 1811 and element 1808 with element 1810 and para 69… “two sets of micro-reticle and micro-lens pairs are arranged around the paracentral and/or peripheral region of a spectacle lens or lens combination such that two sets of micro-reticle images will be formed on or in front of the paracentral and/or peripheral retina with one set's micro-reticle images designed for the unaccommodated or relaxed state of a wearer's eye, and the other designed for the accommodated state of the wearer's eye;” and para 156… “FIG. 18A is a front view of a spectacle which can have different basic spectacle lens or lens combination designs as disclosed in FIGS. 4A-B to FIGS. 13A-B. FIG. 18B is a side or cross sectional view of the two different focusing power sets of micro-lenses with their corresponding micro-reticles. The thicker solid hash patterns 1808 shown in FIG. 18A represent micro-reticles with the hash pattern lines aligned along the radial (or meridional) and the circumferential directions. There are two sets of thinner line ellipses 1810 and 1811, with each set representing a different group of micro-lenses, which are arranged between the micro-reticles and the eye pupil as part of the spectacle lens or lens combination design. The first set of micro-lenses 1810 is represented by a smaller ellipse and has a stronger focusing power than the second set of micro-lenses 1811 which is represented by a larger ellipse. The design of the two sets of micro-lenses is such that when the eye is relaxed in the unaccommodated status for far vision, the first set of micro-lenses will project their corresponding micro-reticles to form corresponding micro-reticle images on, or in front of, the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by a wearer's eye or myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by a wearer's eye), while when the eye is not relaxed but in the accommodated status for typical near vision, the second set of micro-lenses will project their corresponding micro-reticles to form corresponding micro-reticle images on, or in front of, the paracentral and/or peripheral retina (i.e. within focus as perceived by a wearer's eye or myopically defocused within a desired range as perceived by a wearer's eye).” And para 96… “FIGS. 4A-4B show one embodiment of the present invention wherein the integrated recticle(s) include multiple micro-reticles… micro-reticles 408 are positioned deposited or embedded… there are corresponding micro-lenses 410 imprinted or molded or embedded there”]. Additionally, Zhou discloses the scope is inclusive of variations or modifications of the different embodiments which is understood to be inclusive of combinations of different embodiments [see para 230-231].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Zhou in view of Kubota by replacing the 1 set of micro-reticles of embodiment 4A-4B of Zhou with two sets of micro-reticle pairs similarly to that disclosed by the embodiment disclosed in Fig. 18A-18B of Zhou (i.e. one set reciting the light source another set reciting a fixation target and as both are on thereby stationary and/or fixed and/or still which recites claim 37; and as the light applied to the micro-reticles is 650 +/- 30nm as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above recites a fixation target that is red as recited by claim 38; and as the images are on the paracentral retina within focus as perceived by a wear’s eye is understood to at least overlap (i.e. partially strike) the border of the macula as recited by claim 39) because this is a subcombination of different combinations disclosed by Zhou.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Kubota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen et al (US 20130222761) hereafter known as Hansen.
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “wherein an optical power difference at a junction between the central zone of the myopia control lens or optic and the at least one peripheral zone of the myopia control lens or optic is one or more of: blended, a continuous power change, a multi-stepped optical power change, a single-stepped optical power change, or a Fresnel optical design” as recited by claim 24.
Hansen discloses in the analogous art of eyewear that corrects refractive errors of the eye [see para 2… “The present invention relates to toric contact lenses” and para 25… “The inner region or optical zone provides vision correction and is designed for a specific need such as single vision myopia or hyperopia correction”] placing a blended intermediate zone (i.e. a junction that is blended) between an inner optical zone (i.e. central zone) and an outer peripheral zone (i.e. a peripheral zone(s)) in a smooth manner to eliminate possible discontinuities [see para 24… “In some cases, or contact lens designs an intermediate zone or region located between the inner optical zone and the outer peripheral zone may be used for blending the two aforementioned zones in a smooth manner such that discontinuities do not occur.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Kubota by including blended junction similar to that disclosed by Hansen (i.e. thereby reciting “wherein an optical power difference at a junction between the central zone of the myopia control lens or optic and the at least one peripheral zone or region of the myopia control lens or optic is one or more of: blended, a continuous power change, a multi-stepped optical power change, a single-stepped optical power change, or a Fresnel optical design”) because this will eliminate possible discontinuities.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Kubota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tedford et al (US 20160067086) hereafter known as Tedford.
Zhou in view of Kubota discloses the invention substantially as recited in claim 1.
However, Zhou in view of Kubota fails to disclose “biofeedback sensors for sensing biofeedback of the subject and wherein the biofeedback is measuring one or more of a subject’s pupil size or a blink rate” as recited by claim 27.
Tedford discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmic phototherapy [see para 3… “The present disclosure relates to an ophthalmic phototherapy device and an associated treatment methods using non-invasive light therapy. In addition, the present present disclosure is related to devices and methods for exposing an eye to selected wavelengths of light to promote the healing of damaged or diseased eye tissue.”] including a sensor that obtains pupil size in the form of obtaining the pupil diameter to provide feedback to controller of a light for the purpose of controlling the desired dosage of light to the retina [see para 99 of Tedford… “the logic circuit is responsive to signals indicating the spatial position or orientation of the patient's eye (e.g., where the patient is looking) This may be accomplished through the use of one or more cameras (for example, camera 754 of FIG. 7) and associated software algorithms. Supplementary emitters in infrared or other wavelengths may be used as illumination sources to facilitate the eye-tracking. Alternatively, commercially available eye-tracking components or algorithms may be incorporated into the device, partially or in entirety. In at least some embodiments, the logic circuit may utilize the eye-orientation signal to adjust the device output spatially to maintain the appropriate exposure on previously identified target areas.” and see “the device contains one or more cameras (for example, camera 754 of FIG. 7) and associated software algorithms for measuring the diameter of a patient's pupil. This measurement may be performed once, periodically, or continually. The logic circuit may then use the pupil diameter measurement signal to adjust treatment parameters to achieve the desired dosage on the retina.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Zhou in view of Kubota to include a sensor that measures the pupil’s size and controls the light source similarly to that of Tedford for the purpose of providing the appropriate dosage of light to the retina.
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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights