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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner suggests that the applicant incorporate the limitations of dependent claim(s) 2-19 into independent claim(s) 1. Since the § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-19 rely on additional motivation and rationale that are also applied in view of the § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, such an amendment may warrant further searching, consideration, and examination of the resulting claim scope. Thus, such an amendment could facilitate adequate advancement of prosecution.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the refraction area, prescription, eye of the wearer, local maximum, modifying locally an optical power with respect to the refraction area having a refractive power based on a prescription for said eye of the wearer, refractive or diffractive lenslet, unifocal lenslet, bifocal lenslet, multifocal lenslet, torical lenslet, and Pi-Fresnel lenslet, wherein the predefined pattern is a hexagonal pattern, wherein said at least one optical element, modifying locally the optical power, is embedded in a layer of said lens element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Examiner also notes that chemical and mathematical formulas and tables must be presented in compliance with § 1.52(a) and (b), and that chemical or mathematical formulae, tables, and waveforms may be submitted as drawings, and are subject to the same requirements as drawings. See CFR § 1.58 and MPEP § 608.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-19 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.
With respect to Claim 1, “at least a first zone with a refraction area with a front face and a rear face” does not adequately define the refraction area nor its relationship to the first zone, for it is unclear whether the refraction area is coextensive with the first zone, a portion of the first zone, or is even a separate region. Examiner also reminds the applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (e.g., “at least one microstructured second zone outside said first zone and configured for myopia or hyperopia control”) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. “Configured for myopia or hyperopia control” does not identify what degree of myopia or hyperopia control is required, and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain objective boundaries for this limitation.
“Having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
” is also indefinite because the claim does not specify what surface quantity is measured, the dimensions of the PSD, the measurement direction and/or sampling geometry, the surface area over which the measurement is made, how the surface profile is treated before Fourier transformation, etc. A person having ordinary skill in the art would cannot determine with reasonable certainty which measured PSDs fall within the claim limitations. Furthermore, “defined through a Hann window” does not state what is windowed, whether the Hann window is one-dimensional or two-dimensional, its length or spatial extent, or how the window is even incorporated into calculation of
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
. It is unclear if the recited Hann window is a part of the definition of the nominal function, part of the measurement procedure for
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
, or is merely a processing operation applied to measured surface data.
Examiner submits that the mathematical limitations provided are ambiguous and the dimensions are not consistent. The claim identifies
f
as spatial frequency, provides
50
μ
m
3
∙
m
m
-
1
, and gives the range as 0.3 and 10mm-1. However, the claim also assigns
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
the bracketed unit of “
μ
m
-
3
.
” This is an unconventional physical unit for PSD, and thus, the claim does not establish a coherent and/or dimension comparison between the left and right sides of the recited inequality. Since the units and definition of
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
are not well-defined, it is unclear what numerical quantity is actually required to exceed 50. Therefore, the claim limitations do not permit a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a particular lens surface satisfies the expression
∫
0.3
10
【
(
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
-
】
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
)
d
f
>
50
μ
m
3
∙
m
m
-
1
. Furthermore, the claims use of lenticular brackets
(
i
.
e
.
,
【
】
)
is also ambiguous, for the Examiner submits that there is no support in the as-filed specification for these lenticular brackets and they only appear in the claims. Similar to the recited Hann window, the claim also does not clearly specify whether the PSD integral is one-dimensional PSD, a radially averaged two-dimensional PSD, or some other PSD representation not disclosed. Different PSD definitions require different integration measures, for a two-dimensional isotropic PSD may involve an additional radial factor such as
2
π
f
d
f
. Since there are no specifics regarding which PSD is intended, the claimed integral does not establish definite boundaries.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a lens element.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakaraju et al. US 20200073147 A1 (herein after “Bakaraju”) in view of Duparré et al "Surface characterization techniques for determining the root-mean-square roughness and power spectral densities of optical components" (herein after “Duparré”).
With respect to Claim 1, Bakaraju discloses a lens element for a spectacle lens, a contact lens or an intraocular lens (spectacle lens system; [0194]), intended to be worn by a wearer (wearer of the spectacle lens system; [0195]) comprising:
at least a first zone (63; fig. 14a) with a refraction area (within 63; fig. 14a) with a front face (frontal view; [0269]) and a rear face (e.g., as seen in fig. 3j), the refraction area (fig. 14a) having a refractive power (spectacle lens with a refractive power; [0315], A24) based on a prescription (refractive power selected to correct the refractive error of the eye; [0315], A24; choosing a prescription; [0059]) for an eye of the wearer (wearer of the spectacle lens system; [0195]);
at least one microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) outside said first zone (63; fig. 14a) and configured for myopia or hyperopia control (effective myopia control; [0194-195]), said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) having a measurable surface (imposing spatially and/or spectrally variant focal patterns at the retinal level of the corrected eye, particularly to the M and/or L cone receptors, by using refractive optical elements ROEs; [0014]).
Bakaraju does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a measurable surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
such that in a spatial frequency range between 0.3 and 10mm-1:
∫
0.3
10
【
(
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
-
】
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
)
d
f
>
50
μ
m
3
∙
m
m
-
1
P
S
D
n
o
m
being a nominal function defined through a Hann window
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
=
1
*
10
-
7
f
2
[
μ
m
-
3
]
with
f
being the spatial frequency.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Duparré teaches surface characterization techniques for determining power spectral densities of optical components (pg. 1), comprising the recited conventional way of quantitatively characterizing a surface micro-structure by calculating a surface’s spatial frequency PSD measured surface topography data and obtaining roughness by integrating the PSD between fixed lower and upper spatial frequency limits (e.g., see eqn. 6, pg. 7):
σ
r
m
s
,
1
-
D
2
=
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
1
-
D
f
d
f
and
σ
r
m
s
,
2
-
D
2
=
2
π
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
2
-
D
f
f
d
f
.
Thus, when solving for
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
=
1
*
10
-
7
f
2
[
μ
m
-
3
]
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
10
10
-
7
f
2
d
f
=
10
-
7
-
1
f
0.3
10
=
10
-
7
1
0.3
-
1
10
≈
3.2333
×
10
-
7
.
The recited condition being
∫
0.3
10
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
d
f
>
50.0000003233
.
If
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
6
μ
m
3
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
10
6
d
f
=
6
10
-
0.3
≈
58.2
>
50.0000003233
would satisfy the recited expression, for Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches a lens structure that is substantially identical to the structure recited in the claims. Bakaraju in view of Duparré further discloses the relevant structural parameters, including the dimensions, spacing, and surface curvature of the microstructures. Since the claimed PSD property and Hann window function are measurable characteristics of the disclosed physical surface structure, the substantially identical structure possesses the corresponding surface-spatial characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
6
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 2, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1, wherein in said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]), said measured surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
is equal or higher in a spatial frequency range between 0.3 and 10mm-1 (see claim 1;
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
6
μ
m
3
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
10
6
d
f
=
6
10
-
0.3
≈
58.2
>
50.0000003233
being higher in a spatial frequency range between 0.3 and 10mm-1; Bakaraju in view of Duparré).
With respect to Claim 3, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1.
Bakaraju does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the measured surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
shows, in a logarithmic scale, at least one local maximum.
However, Duparré further teaches a procedure to interpolate data for points where PSD is not digitized, such as finding the PSD at a spatial frequency
f
that is between two sampling frequences
f
A
and
f
B
(
f
A
<
f
<
f
B
)
of the PSD. Duparré further teaches a segment between points
f
A
,
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
and
f
B
,
P
S
D
(
f
B
)
on a log-log scale graph while estimating the value of the PSD at
f
from the segment, corresponding to applying expression 9:
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
)
=
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
+
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
B
)
-
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
log
f
B
-
l
o
g
(
f
A
)
×
log
f
-
l
o
g
(
f
A
)
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that has a local maximum in a logarithmic scale and satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
6
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, and selecting a procedure i.e., log-log scale that is the most natural for a display of PSD functions, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 8, 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 4, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1.
Bakaraju does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein at least one local maximum is located in spatial frequency range between 0.3 - 2mm-1, limits included.
However, Duparré further teaches surface characterization techniques for determining power spectral densities of optical components (pg. 1), comprising the recited conventional way of quantitatively characterizing a surface micro-structure by calculating a surface’s spatial frequency PSD measured surface topography data and obtaining roughness by integrating the PSD between fixed lower and upper spatial frequency limits (e.g., see eqn. 6, pg. 7):
σ
r
m
s
,
1
-
D
2
=
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
1
-
D
f
d
f
and
σ
r
m
s
,
2
-
D
2
=
2
π
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
2
-
D
f
f
d
f
.
Thus, when solving for
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
=
1
*
10
-
7
f
2
[
μ
m
-
3
]
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
2
10
-
7
f
2
d
f
=
10
-
7
-
1
f
0.3
2
=
10
-
7
1
0.3
-
1
2
≈
2.8333
×
10
-
7
.
The recited condition being
∫
0.3
2
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
d
f
>
50.0000002833
.
If
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
30
μ
m
3
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
2
30
d
f
=
30
2
-
0.3
≈
51
>
50.0000002833
would satisfy the recited expression, for Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches a lens structure that is substantially identical to the structure recited in the claims. Bakaraju in view of Duparré further discloses the relevant structural parameters, including the dimensions, spacing, and surface curvature of the microstructures. Since the claimed PSD property and Hann window function are measurable characteristics of the disclosed physical surface structure, the substantially identical structure possesses the corresponding surface-spatial characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
30
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 5, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1.
Bakaraju does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein at least two local maxima are located in spatial frequency range between 1mm-1 - 5mm-1, limits included.
However, Duparré further teaches surface characterization techniques for determining power spectral densities of optical components (pg. 1), comprising the recited conventional way of quantitatively characterizing a surface micro-structure by calculating a surface’s spatial frequency PSD measured surface topography data and obtaining roughness by integrating the PSD between fixed lower and upper spatial frequency limits (e.g., see eqn. 6, pg. 7):
σ
r
m
s
,
1
-
D
2
=
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
1
-
D
f
d
f
and
σ
r
m
s
,
2
-
D
2
=
2
π
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
2
-
D
f
f
d
f
.
Thus, when solving for
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
=
1
*
10
-
7
f
2
[
μ
m
-
3
]
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
1
5
10
-
7
f
2
d
f
=
10
-
7
-
1
f
1
5
=
10
-
7
1
-
1
5
≈
8
e
-
8
.
The recited condition being
∫
1
5
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
d
f
>
50.00000008
.
If
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
13
μ
m
3
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
1
5
13
d
f
=
13
5
-
1
≈
52
>
50.00000008
would satisfy the recited expression, for Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches a lens structure that is substantially identical to the structure recited in the claims. Bakaraju in view of Duparré further discloses the relevant structural parameters, including the dimensions, spacing, and surface curvature of the microstructures. Since the claimed PSD property and Hann window function are measurable characteristics of the disclosed physical surface structure, the substantially identical structure possesses the corresponding surface-spatial characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
13
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 6, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1, wherein said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) includes at least one optical element (populated with micro lenslets or ROEs 61; [0272]; fig. 14a) modifying locally an optical power (substantial portion of micro lenslets are transparent and comprises contoured surface configured to focus light, substantially alters path of light to provide directional signal to control eye growth; [0315], A24) with respect to the refraction area (within 63; fig. 14a) having a refractive power (spectacle lens with a refractive power; [0315], A24) based on a prescription for said eye of the wearer (wearer of the spectacle lens system; [0195]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 7, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 6, wherein said at least one optical element (populated with micro lenslets or ROEs 61; [0272]; fig. 14a) modifying locally the optical power ([0315], A24) is chosen among a group including: refractive or diffractive lenslet, unifocal lenslet, bifocal lenslet, multifocal lenslet, torical lenslet, and Pi-Fresnel lenslet (populated with micro lenslets or ROEs 61; [0272]; fig. 14a; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 8, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 6, wherein said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) includes several optical elements (several ROEs as seen in fig. 14a) modifying locally the optical power ([0315], A24) and which are disposed according to a predefined pattern (plurality of micro lenslets of predetermined shape and size, arranged in predetermined pattern; [0315], A24; fig. 14a; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 9, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according claim 8, wherein the predefined pattern (plurality of micro lenslets of predetermined shape and size, arranged in predetermined pattern; [0315], A24; fig. 14a) is a ring pattern (ring pattern as seen in fig. 14a; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 10, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according claim 8, wherein the predefined pattern is a hexagonal pattern (micro lenslets, refractive and/or diffractive optical elements may be circular, semi-circular, non-circular, oval, rectangular, hexagonal, square or combinations thereof; [0217-218]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 11, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 6, wherein said at least one optical element (populated with micro lenslets or ROEs 61; [0272]; fig. 14a), modifying locally the optical power ([0315], A24), is disposed on said front face (frontal view; [0269]) OR said rear face (e.g., as seen in fig. 3j; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 12, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 6, wherein said at least one optical element (populated with micro lenslets or ROEs 61; [0272]; fig. 14a), modifying locally the optical power ([0315], A24), is embedded in a layer (as seen in fig. 14a) of said lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 13, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 12, wherein the said at least one microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) has a surface of at least 10mm2 (focal length of one or more of the micro lenslet may be at least 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 2000 mm or combinations thereof; [0226]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 14, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 12, wherein said at least one microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) is located outside a central zone (a circular central portion of the device is devoid or substantially devoid of micro lenslets or ROEs; [0269]) of the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 15, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 12, wherein said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) extends radially from an optical center (central circular opening, area free of micro lenslets of ROEs, array 60 extending radially as seen in fig. 14a; [0269]) of the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 16, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 1.
Bakajaru does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein in said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]), said measured surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
is equal or higher in a spatial frequency range between 0.3 and 5mm-1 than a nominal
P
S
D
n
o
m
function.
However, Duparré further teaches surface characterization techniques for determining power spectral densities of optical components (pg. 1), comprising the recited conventional way of quantitatively characterizing a surface micro-structure by calculating a surface’s spatial frequency PSD measured surface topography data and obtaining roughness by integrating the PSD between fixed lower and upper spatial frequency limits (e.g., see eqn. 6, pg. 7):
σ
r
m
s
,
1
-
D
2
=
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
1
-
D
f
d
f
and
σ
r
m
s
,
2
-
D
2
=
2
π
∫
f
m
i
n
f
m
a
x
P
S
D
2
-
D
f
f
d
f
.
Thus, when solving for
P
S
D
n
o
m
(
f
)
=
1
*
10
-
7
f
2
[
μ
m
-
3
]
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
5
10
-
7
f
2
d
f
=
10
-
7
-
1
f
0.3
5
=
10
-
7
1
0.3
-
1
5
≈
3.1333
×
10
-
7
.
The recited condition being
∫
0.3
5
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
d
f
>
50.0000003133
.
If
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
13
μ
m
3
[Wingdings font/0xE0]
∫
0.3
5
13
d
f
=
13
5
-
0.3
≈
61.1
>
50.0000003133
would satisfy the recited expression, for Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches a lens structure that is substantially identical to the structure recited in the claims. Bakaraju in view of Duparré further discloses the relevant structural parameters, including the dimensions, spacing, and surface curvature of the microstructures. Since the claimed PSD property and Hann window function are measurable characteristics of the disclosed physical surface structure, the substantially identical structure possesses the corresponding surface-spatial characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
13
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 17, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 2.
Bakaraju does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the measured surface spatial power spectral density
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
(
f
)
shows in a logarithmic scale at least one local maximum.
However, Duparré further teaches a procedure to interpolate data for points where PSD is not digitized, such as finding the PSD at a spatial frequency
f
that is between two sampling frequences
f
A
and
f
B
(
f
A
<
f
<
f
B
)
of the PSD. Duparré further teaches a segment between points
f
A
,
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
and
f
B
,
P
S
D
(
f
B
)
on a log-log scale graph while estimating the value of the PSD at
f
from the segment, corresponding to applying expression 9:
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
)
=
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
+
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
B
)
-
l
o
g
P
S
D
(
f
A
)
log
f
B
-
l
o
g
(
f
A
)
×
log
f
-
l
o
g
(
f
A
)
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the micro lenslet of Bakaraju in view of Duparré to include the technical features of having a measurable surface spatial power spectral density that has a local maximum in a logarithmic scale and satisfies the expression
P
S
D
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
≈
6
μ
m
3
, for the purpose of achieving smoother PSDs, avoiding isolated particles, and enabling better comparison for measurements, and selecting a procedure i.e., log-log scale that is the most natural for a display of PSD functions, as taught by Duparré (pgs. 8, 13, 15, 16, first column). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.
With respect to Claim 18, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according to claim 7, wherein said microstructured second zone (micro lenslet or ROE array 60; [0269]) includes several optical elements (several ROEs as seen in fig. 14a) modifying locally the optical power ([0315], A24) and which are disposed according to a predefined pattern (plurality of micro lenslets of predetermined shape and size, arranged in predetermined pattern; [0315], A24; fig. 14a; Bakaraju).
With respect to Claim 19, Bakaraju in view of Duparré teaches the lens element (spectacle lens system; [0194]) according claim 8, wherein the predefined pattern (plurality of micro lenslets of predetermined shape and size, arranged in predetermined pattern; [0315], A24; fig. 14a) is a ring pattern along several concentric rings (ring pattern along concentric rings as seen in fig. 14a, 14d-f; Bakaraju).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Elson et al. discloses calculation of the power spectral density from surface profile data substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Wang et al. CN 106247987 A discloses a method for improving optical surface profile detecting precision and the highest effective frequency resolution method substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 14 August 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights