1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to ophthalmic lenses such as, for example, contact lenses or intraocular lenses (IOLs). Exemplary embodiments include monofocal and multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses having reduced light scatter and/or improved light energy distribution, for example, through subtle shaping of echelettes with appropriately curving profiles.
2. Description of Background Art
Presbyopia is a condition that affects the accommodation properties of the eye. As objects move closer to a young, properly functioning eye, the effects of ciliary muscle contraction and zonular relaxation allow the lens of the eye to change shape, and thus increase its optical power and ability to focus at near distances. This accommodation can allow the eye to focus and refocus between near and far objects.
Presbyopia normally develops as a person ages, and is associated with a natural progressive loss of accommodation. The presbyopic eye often loses the ability to rapidly and easily refocus on objects at varying distances. The effects of presbyopia usually become noticeable after the age of 45 years. By the age of 65 years, the crystalline lens has often lost almost all elastic properties and has only limited ability to change shape.
Along with reductions in accommodation of the eye, age may also induce clouding of the lens due to the formation of cataracts. Cataracts may form in the hard central nucleus of the lens, in the softer peripheral cortical portion of the lens, or at the back of the lens. Cataracts can be treated by the replacement of the cloudy natural lens with an artificial lens. An artificial lens replaces the natural lens in the eye, with the artificial lens often being referred to as an intra-ocular lens or “IOL”.
A variety of technologies have been developed to enhance the ability of IOLs to facilitate viewing. Multifocal IOLs may, for example, often rely on a diffractive optical surface to direct portions of the light energy toward differing focal distances, thereby allowing the patient to clearly see both near and far objects. Alternative diffractive multifocal ophthalmic lenses (including contact lenses or the like) have been proposed for treatments of presbyopia without removal of the natural crystalline lens. Diffractive optical surfaces, either monofocal or multifocal, may also be configured to provide reduced chromatic aberrations.
Like other lenses, diffractive monofocal or multifocal lenses can make use of a material having a given refractive index and a surface curvature to provide a refractive power. Diffractive lenses also have a diffractive profile which confers the lens with a diffractive power that contributes to the overall optical power of the lens. The diffractive profile is typically characterized by a number of diffractive zones. The diffractive power is related to the properties of these zones, for instance their number, shape, size and position. When used for ophthalmic lenses these zones are typically annular lens zones, or echelettes, spaced about the optical axis of the lens. Each echelette may be defined by an optical zone, a transition zone between the optical zone and an optical zone of an adjacent echelette, and an echelette geometry. The echelette geometry includes a diameter and a shape or slope of the optical zone, as well as a height or step height of the transition zone. The diameters of the echelettes largely determine the power(s) of the lens and the step height of the transition zones largely determines the light distribution between the different add powers. Together, these echelettes form a diffractive profile, often saw-toothed or stepped, on one of the surfaces of the lens.
A multifocal diffractive profile of the lens can be used to mitigate presbyopia by providing two or more optical powers, for example, one for near vision and one for far vision. These lenses may be in the form of a multifocal contact lens, most commonly a bifocal contact lens. The lenses may also take the form of an intraocular lens placed within the capsular bag of the eye, replacing the original lens.
Although monofocal and multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses have greatly improved the quality of vision for many patients, additional improvements would still be beneficial. For example, some pseudophakic patients may experience scatter effects, such as halos. Therefore, monofocal and multifocal diffractive multifocal lenses having diffractive profiles resulting in reduced scatter (and thus an improved quality of vision) may be beneficial. For multifocal lenses, along with directing portions of the incident light energy at focal distances suitable for near and far viewing, diffractive optics may also direct significant light energy at other non-viewing foci, which can contribute to unwanted light-related visual phenomenon experienced by the patient (dysphotopsia). Having non-viewing foci of diffractive optics of multifocal lenses cannot be completely avoided. However, diffractive multifocal lenses having diffractive profiles which optimize the light energy distribution between viewing and non-viewing foci to improve quality of vision would also be beneficial. Controllably varying light distributions over the diffractive profile may also provide some advantages, so that diffractive multifocal lenses having diffractive profiles which vary light distribution over the profile may be desirable.
The present invention generally provides improved lenses and imaging techniques. Embodiments of the present invention provide improved ophthalmic lenses (including, for example contact lenses, intraocular lenses (IOLs), and the like) and associated methods for their design and use. Exemplary embodiments provide monofocal and/or multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses having reduced light scatter and/or improved light energy distribution, for example, through subtle shaping of echelettes with appropriately curving profiles extending between the optical zones of adjacent echelette surfaces. In some embodiments, diffractive ophthalmic lenses having multiple foci often use a zero order diffraction for far vision and a first order diffraction for near vision, while limiting the light energy directed to the other unwanted orders. Specifically, it has been recognized that light energy directed to foci of a selected subset of the non-viewing orders—those that are closest to the zero order focus—can have an disproportionate effect on vision quality. By limiting the light energy in such selected orders (optionally, even at the cost of directing more total light energy to higher and/or non-viewing order foci), dysphotopsia may be mitigated. Imposing a controlled curvature across a series of echelettes can be used to tailor energies of the various foci or diffraction orders so as to provide such benefits, and/or may be used to limit scatter effects which may otherwise be generated by the sharp corners associated with vertical steps between adjacent conventional diffractive echelettes.
In a first aspect, the invention provides a multifocal ophthalmic lens. The ophthalmic lens includes an anterior face and a posterior face. Each face has a refractive profile. The faces are disposed about an optical axis. The faces may define a clear aperture. A diffractive profile is imposed on one of the refractive profiles. The diffractive profile includes a plurality of echelettes with associated step heights that are substantially equal to one another. The diffractive profile has, in the visible waveband, a zeroth diffractive order and a first diffractive order having a diffraction add power. The zeroth and first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change with radius from the optical axis.
In many embodiments, the diffractive profile is characterized by a continuous function over a plurality of echelettes.
In many embodiments, the echelettes comprise a central echelette and N additional echelettes. The N additional echelettes comprise a first echelette disposed about the central echelette, a second echelette disposed about the first echelette, up to an Nth echelette disposed about an (N−1)th echelette. In some embodiments, the zeroth and first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change with the number of surrounding echelettes. In some embodiments N is at least 4. The zeroth and the first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change depending on the number of surrounding echelettes.
In another aspect, the invention provides a multifocal ophthalmic lens. The ophthalmic lens includes an anterior face and a posterior face. Each face has a refractive profile. The faces are disposed about an optical axis. The faces may define a clear aperture. A diffractive profile is imposed on one of the refractive profiles. The diffractive profile includes a plurality of echelettes with associated step heights that are substantially equal to one another. The diffractive profile has, in the visible waveband, a first diffractive order and a second diffractive order having a diffraction add power. The first and second diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change with radius from the optical axis.
In many embodiments, the diffractive profile is characterized by a continuous function over a plurality of echelettes.
In many embodiments, the echelettes comprise a central echelette and N additional echelettes. The N additional echelettes comprise a first echelette disposed about the central echelette, a second echelette disposed about the first echelette, up to an Nth echelette disposed about an (N−1)th echelette. In some embodiments, the zeroth and first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change with the number of surrounding echelettes. In some embodiments N is at least 4. The first and the second diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change depending on the number of surrounding echelettes.
In another aspect, the invention provides a method for viewing with a diffractive ophthalmic lens using an eye of a patient. The ophthalmic lens includes a plurality of echelettes with associated step heights that are substantially equal to one another. The echelettes each have a characteristic profile and define a diffractive surface. The diffractive surface has in the visible waveband, a zeroth diffractive order and a first diffractive order. The method comprises changing the diffractive efficiency of the first diffractive order of the echelettes with radius from the optical axis.
In many embodiments, changing the diffractive efficiency of the first diffractive order of each of the echelettes with radius from the optical axis comprises changing the profile of each of the echelettes with radius from the optical axis.
In many embodiments, the echelettes comprise a central echelette and N additional echelettes. The N additional echelettes comprise a first echelette disposed about the central echelette, a second echelette disposed about the first echelette, up to an Nth echelette disposed about an (N−1)th echelette. In some embodiments, the zeroth and first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change with the number of surrounding echelettes. In some embodiments N is at least 4. The zeroth and the first diffraction orders have diffraction efficiencies which change depending on the number of surrounding echelettes.
In many embodiments, any one of the step heights do not vary by more than 20 percent from an average of all the step heights.
For illustration purposes, the profile geometries shown in the aforementioned figures were not drawn exactly to scale. The heights of the diffractive profiles shown in the figures is generally in the order of about 0.5 millimeters and about 2.0 millimeters although the heights may vary depending on factors such as the amount of correction needed by the patient, the refractive index of the lens material and surrounding medium, and the desired distribution of light between wanted diffraction orders.
The present invention generally provides improved lenses and imaging systems. Embodiments of the invention may find their most immediate use may be in the form of improved ophthalmic devices, systems, and methods. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention provide improved ophthalmic lenses (including, for example contact lenses, intraocular lenses (IOLs), corneal lenses and the like) and associated methods for their design and use. Embodiments of the present invention include monofocal diffractive lenses, bifocal diffractive lenses, and multifocal diffractive lenses. Exemplary embodiments provide multifocal diffractive ophthalmic lenses having reduced light scatter and/or improved light energy distribution so as to enhance viewing performance, for example, through subtle shaping of a smoothly curving profile extending across a plurality of echelettes. The surface is generally optically smooth to help reduce scatter. As used herein, “optically smooth” means having an average roughness that is much smaller than the wavelength of visible light (e.g., having an rms roughness that is less that 100 nm, λ/10, or the like, where λ is a wavelength of light).
Diffractive ophthalmic lenses having multiple foci often use zero order diffraction for far vision and first order diffraction for near vision. Some portion of the light energy is also directed to other, non-viewing orders. As used herein, the term “non-viewing order” means a diffractive order containing energy that is not useful in forming an image on the retina of an eye. By recognizing that foci of the non-viewing orders that are closest to the zero order focus can have the largest negative effect on vision quality, and by limiting the light energy in such selected non-viewing orders, dysphotopsia (e.g., scattering or halo effects) may be mitigated, even if more total cumulative light energy ends up being directed to higher order and/or other non-viewing foci. Imposing a controlled shape or curvature across a plurality of echelettes can be used to tailor energies of the various foci so as to provide such benefits, and may also be used to limit deleterious scatter that can otherwise be generated by the sharp corners associated with vertical steps between adjacent conventional diffractive echelettes.
The shape or diffractive profile of a multifocal lens can impact the light energy distribution between foci. For example, known multifocal lenses often seek to distribute imaging light energy between 2 viewing foci: one (typically the zero order focus) corresponding with far viewing distances and one (typically the first order focus) corresponding to near viewing distances. The remaining light is distributed to other non-viewing foci. For example, a conventional multifocal lens with a desired 50%:50% light distribution between the far and near foci, may also result in about 41% of the light energy directed to the far focus, about 41% of the light energy directed to the near focus, and about 18% of the light energy being directed to non-viewing and/or higher order foci, the higher order foci being generally situated symmetrically around the 2 main viewing foci. In order of diminishing brightness, the next brightest foci may, for example, be the −1st and 2nd order foci, each of which are non-viewing foci and may receive about 4.5% of the light energy.
The non-viewing and/or higher order foci have a negative effect on the quality of vision. However, the negative effect of the various non-viewing foci will not be the same, and will not depend solely on the portion of incident light energy each focus receives. Instead, higher order foci that are close to the zero order focus will tend to have a disproportionately larger negative effect on perceived scatter and halo effects. Too much light energy (and thus brightness) in such higher order foci can contribute to dysphotopsia. Therefore, diffractive multifocal lenses having diffractive profiles which optimize and/or selectively tailor the light energy distribution between the various foci may improve quality of vision and reduce dysphotopsia for pseudophakic patients, contact lens users, and the like.
The structures of the present invention may also present additional advantages by enhancing the design flexibility through selectively curving echelette profiles, with the curvatures presenting additional design variables that can be used to benefit overall viewing performance. For example, varying light distributions over the diffractive profile may also provide advantages. Reading is often done in bright light conditions in which the pupil is small. In contrast, night-time driving is done in low light conditions in which the pupil is large. It may be advantageous to vary light distribution radially across the diffractive profile so that different light energy splits are provided based on the viewing situation and resulting pupil size. In some such ophthalmic lenses, a greater proportion of light energy may be transmitted to the far focus from a peripheral portion of the lens to accommodate for low light, far viewing conditions such as night time driving, with the near viewing receiving relatively more light energy from a central portion of the diffractive profile. Varying curvature and/or shapes of the echelettes radially may thus provide diffractive multifocal lenses having a diffractive profiles which vary light distribution over the profile as the pupil changes in size.
As another example of the benefits of intentional and controlled curving diffractive profiles for ophthalmic lenses, the scatter of multifocal diffractive lenses may be higher than that of corresponding monofocal and/or purely refractive designs. The diffractive profile of multifocal diffractive lenses may play a significant role in producing such scatter, and appropriately controlled curving profiles may be employed to inhibit such scatter, often providing such benefits in combination with one or more of the other improvements described herein.
Each major face of lens 11, including the anterior (front) surface and posterior (back) surface, generally has a refractive profile. The two surfaces together, in relation to the properties of the air, tear film, cornea, and other optical components of the overall optical system, define the effects of the lens 11 on the imaging performance by eye E. Conventional, monofocal contact lenses have a refractive power based on the refractive index of the material from which the lens is made, and also on the curvature or shape of the front and mar surfaces or faces of the lens.
In a young, healthy eye contraction and relaxation of ciliary muscles 17 surrounding the natural lens 14 contribute to accommodation of the eye, the process by which the eye increases optical power to maintain focus on objects as they move closer. As a person ages, the degree of accommodation decreases and presbyopia, the diminished ability to focus on near objects, often results. A patient may therefore need corrective optics having two optical powers, one for near vision and one for far vision, as provided by multifocal contact lens 11.
Multifocal lenses may optionally also make use of the refractive properties of the lens. Such lenses generally include different powers in different regions of the lens so as to mitigate the effects of presbyopia. For example, as shown in
Rather than relying entirely on the refractive properties of the lens, multifocal diffractive contact lenses or IOLs can also have a diffractive power. The diffractive power can, for example, comprise positive add power, and that add power may be a significant (or even the primary) contributor to the overall optical power of the lens. The diffractive power is conferred by a plurality of concentric diffractive zones which form a diffractive profile. The diffractive profile may either be imposed on the anterior face or posterior face or both.
The diffractive profile of a diffractive multifocal lens acts as a diffraction grating and directs incoming light into a number of diffraction orders. As light 13 enters from the front of the eye, multifocal contact lens and the natural lens 14 bend light 13 to form a far field focus 15a on retina 16 for viewing for distant objects and a near field focus 15b for objects close to the eye. Depending on the distance form the source of light 13, the focus on retina 16, the viewing focus, may be near field focus 15b instead. Far field focus 15a is associated with 0th diffractive order and near field focus 15b is associated with the 1st diffractive order.
Multifocal ophthalmic lens 11 typically distributes the majority of light energy into the two viewing orders, often with the goal of splitting imaging light energy evenly (50%:50%). However, a significant portion of the incident light energy is directed into other, non-viewing diffractive orders 15c, 15d, and the like (the non-viewing orders typically comprising the 2nd, 3rd, . . . , −1st, −2nd, −3rd, . . . ) such that the 0th and 1st order each receive about 40.5% of the light energy when standard ideal parabolic echelettes with sharp vertical transitions are used. The remaining percentage of the light energy is received by the higher and lower orders, with the −1 and 2nd order each receiving about 4.5% of the light energy for such lenses.
The corrective optics may also be provided by other types of multifocal ophthalmic lenses such as multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) 18 shown in
When fitted onto the eye of a subject or patient, the optical axis of lens 20 is generally aligned with the optical axis of eye E. The curvature of lens 20 gives lens 20 an anterior refractive profile and a posterior refractive profile. Although a diffractive profile may also be imposed on either anterior face 21 and posterior face 22 or both,
As shown in
The light energy distribution between different diffractive orders is dependent on a wavelength λ, often in the visible band, the depth of step height 32, and the difference (Δη) between the refractive index of the lens and that of the surrounding medium. For example, step height 32 having a depth of λ will distribute the majority of light energy to the 1st order, which corresponds to the near field, and essentially be monofocal. At a depth of greater than λ/(2Δη), there will be greater light energy or intensity distributed to the 1st order than the 0th order, which corresponds to the far field. At a depth of less than λ/(2Δη), light energy is distributed more towards the 0th order. Most commonly, a depth of λ/(2Δη) is used for conventional multifocal lenses. At this depth, light energy at the wavelength λ can be distributed evenly between the 1st and 0th orders, often at 40.5% each with the −1st and 2nd orders each receiving 4.5% of the light energy.
The methods described to reduce scatter and optimize light energy distribution are not limited in application to multifocal diffractive lenses. They may also be applicable to monofocal diffractive lenses, for example, those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,830,332, which is herein incorporated by reference. Monofocal diffractive lenses include a refractive portion and a monofocal diffractive portion. The diffractive portion has a single viewing focus. Implementing a smooth, transition zone having a radius of curvature greater than a design wavelength λ would also reduce scatter resulting from the transition zones of the diffractive portion of the monofocal lens. Light distribution may also be balanced between the viewing focus and non-viewing foci using the methods described.
Diffractive profile 40 is shown with a filled line compared to a conventional diffractive profile 44 shown with a parabolic profile shown with a dotted line. The exemplary diffractive profile is defined by a single, continuous function. In other embodiments, the optical zone and the transition zone may each be defined by distinct functions. The single, continuous function shown is a cosine function enhanced by a power function and a stretch function. The function, Equation 1, is as follows:
Δ(ρ) is the displacement from a reference plane perpendicular to the optical axis, in other words the height of the profile at a position ρ; ρ is the square of radius r from the optical axis; en is an exponential power; r1 is a radius of the first or central echelette; q1 is the size of the optical zone of the first or central echelette (r1−q1 would therefore be the size of the transition zone); Y_min is a parameter that determines the shape of the optical zone; Y_max is (2q12−r12)/(r12−q12)/r12; X_shift is q12; in is a parameter indicative of the width of a region blending the optical zone (for the first optical zone, this is when r<q1) and the transition zone (for the first optical zone, this is when r>q1); and Δ0 is the height of the profile. It will be noted that the term [1−(ρ/r12)en][1−(ρ/r12)] in this equations is an optical zone term that decreases as ρ increases, while the remaining variables to the right of this term form a transition zone term. The addition of optical zone term and the transition term gives the shape of the continuous of the profile.
The exemplary diffractive profile 40 is characterized by the above function wherein α=0.592, en=3, r1/q1=0.95, m=1 and Y_min=−0.0002.
In addition to reducing the amount of scatter, diffractive profile 40 results in a different light energy distribution to the diffractive orders, as shown below in Table 1. Compared to a conventional, parabolic diffractive profile which distributes 81.1% of the light energy to the 0th, and 1st orders, diffractive profile 40 distributes less overall energy—here 79.1% of the light energy—to the 0th and 1 orders. Also, conventional diffractive profiles distributes 4.5% of the light to the −1st order, the non-viewing order closest to the far focus (i.e., the diffraction efficiency of the −1 order is 4.5%). In contrast, diffractive profile 40 distributes less that 4%, often being less than 3%, and preferably less that 2.5% of the incident light energy to the −1st order, with the exemplary embodiment delivering only 2.1% of the light energy (i.e., the diffraction efficiency of the −1 order is 2.5%) to the −1st order. This results in less disturbance in far field vision, improving far field quality of vision and reducing dysphotopsia to a lower level.
Profile 4-5 corresponding to diffractive profile 40 of
As seen from Tables 3A and 3B, by gradually varying the shape of each echelette as a function of distance or radius from the optical axis, the diffraction efficiency for the 0th order or far focus is gradually increased from 50% to 80%.
Experiment A
The light scatter characteristics of two sample multifocal lenses according to the present invention were measured and compared to that of a comparable monofocal lens and a comparable multifocal lens with a conventional diffractive profile. The conventional monofocal and multifocal lenses are generally similar except that the conventional monofocal lens has a continuous surface without a diffraction profile and a lower surface roughness. Apart from new diffractive profiles defined by a single, continuous function as previously described, the two sample multifocal lenses are identical to the conventional lenses. For instance, the sample lenses and the conventional monofocal and multifocal lenses have the same light distribution (50%:50%) between the far and near foci. The amount of scatter was measured for each of the lenses using an eye model and a bright white light source, resulting in the graph shown in
As shown in
The embodiments described above, including accompanying drawings, figures, functions and tables, are for illustrative purposes to explain aspects of the present invention. Those skilled in the art will recognize that changes and modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention, which is solely limited by the claims as follows.
The present application is a divisional of application U.S. Ser. No. 12/109,251 filed on Apr. 24, 2008 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,871,162), which incorporated by reference for all purposes the entire contents of: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/047,699 entitled DIFFRACTIVE LENS EXHIBITING ENHANCED LIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND REDUCED SCATTER filed on Apr. 24, 2008.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3367734 | Bystricky et al. | Feb 1968 | A |
4637697 | Freeman | Jan 1987 | A |
4642112 | Freeman | Feb 1987 | A |
4655565 | Freeman | Apr 1987 | A |
4778462 | Grendahl | Oct 1988 | A |
4795462 | Grendahl | Jan 1989 | A |
4798608 | Grendahl | Jan 1989 | A |
4798609 | Grendahl | Jan 1989 | A |
4932970 | Portney | Jun 1990 | A |
4995714 | Cohen | Feb 1991 | A |
4995715 | Cohen | Feb 1991 | A |
5016977 | Baude et al. | May 1991 | A |
5056908 | Cohen | Oct 1991 | A |
5066301 | Wiley | Nov 1991 | A |
5089023 | Swanson | Feb 1992 | A |
5096285 | Silberman | Mar 1992 | A |
5114220 | Baude et al. | May 1992 | A |
5117306 | Cohen | May 1992 | A |
5120120 | Cohen | Jun 1992 | A |
5121979 | Cohen | Jun 1992 | A |
5121980 | Cohen | Jun 1992 | A |
5144483 | Cohen | Sep 1992 | A |
5225858 | Portney | Jul 1993 | A |
5229797 | Futhey et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5652638 | Roffman et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5699142 | Lee et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5748282 | Freeman | May 1998 | A |
5760871 | Kosoburd et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5796462 | Roffman et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5968094 | Werblin et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6126283 | Wen et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6126286 | Portney | Oct 2000 | A |
6142625 | Sawano et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6210005 | Portney | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6338559 | Williams et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6457826 | Lett | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6464355 | Gil | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6474814 | Griffin | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6488708 | Sarfarazi | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6491721 | Freeman et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6527389 | Portney | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6533416 | Fermigier et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6536899 | Fiala | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6537317 | Steinert et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6547822 | Lang | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6554859 | Lang et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6557992 | Dwyer et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6609793 | Norrby et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6705729 | Piers et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6808262 | Chapoy et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6830332 | Piers et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6846326 | Zadno-Azizi et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6851803 | Wooley et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6923539 | Simpson et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6923540 | Ye et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6986578 | Jones | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7036931 | Lindacher et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7048760 | Cumming | May 2006 | B2 |
7061693 | Zalevsky | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7073906 | Portney | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7137702 | Piers et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7156516 | Morris et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7188949 | Bandhauer et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7287852 | Fiala | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7293873 | Dai et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7365917 | Zalevsky | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7377640 | Piers et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7441894 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7455404 | Bandhauer et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7475986 | Dai et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7615073 | Deacon et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7871162 | Weeber | Jan 2011 | B2 |
20020118337 | Perrott et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030076478 | Cox | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030171808 | Phillips | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040021824 | Ye et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040085515 | Roffman et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040106992 | Lang et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040111153 | Woods et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040150789 | Jones | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040156014 | Piers et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040230299 | Simpson et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050096226 | Stock et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050128432 | Altmann | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050203619 | Altmann | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050267575 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060009816 | Fang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060030938 | Altmann | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060034003 | Zalevsky | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060055883 | Morris et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060066808 | Blum et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060098162 | Bandhauer et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060098163 | Bandhauer et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060109421 | Ye et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060116763 | Simpson | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060116764 | Simpson | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060176572 | Fiala | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060238702 | Glick et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060244904 | Hong et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070052920 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070129803 | Cumming et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070171362 | Simpson et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070182924 | Hong et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080030677 | Simpson | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080161913 | Brady et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080161914 | Brady et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090062911 | Bogaert | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090164008 | Hong et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090187242 | Weeber et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090210054 | Weeber et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090234448 | Weeber et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090268155 | Weeber | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090268158 | Weeber | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090295295 | Shannon et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090323020 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100161048 | Schaper, Jr. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
343067 | Nov 1989 | EP |
457553 | Nov 1991 | EP |
681198 | Nov 1995 | EP |
0926531 | Jun 1999 | EP |
949529 | Oct 1999 | EP |
1424049 | Jun 2004 | EP |
1310267 | Jan 2008 | EP |
1424049 | Jun 2009 | EP |
WO9222264 | Dec 1992 | WO |
WO9303409 | Feb 1993 | WO |
WO0019906 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO0163344 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO0182839 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO0189424 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO0221194 | Mar 2002 | WO |
WO03009053 | Jan 2003 | WO |
WO2004034129 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO2004090611 | Oct 2004 | WO |
WO2004096014 | Nov 2004 | WO |
WO2005019906 | Mar 2005 | WO |
WO2006025726 | Mar 2006 | WO |
WO2006047698 | May 2006 | WO |
WO2006060477 | Jun 2006 | WO |
WO2006060480 | Jun 2006 | WO |
WO2007092948 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO2007133384 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO2008045847 | Apr 2008 | WO |
WO2009076670 | Jun 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/IB2009/005590, mailed on Sep. 30, 2009, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US08/073999, mailed on Dec. 3, 2008, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US2010/061081, mailed on Apr. 6, 2011, 2 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,155, filed Apr. 23, 2009. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/618,325, filed Dec. 29, 2006 (Brady et al). |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/618,411, filed Dec. 29, 2006(Bradyetai). |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/109,251, filed Apr. 24, 2008. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2011/001067, mailed on Sep. 13, 2011, 13 pages. |
Piers P.A., et al., “Eye Models for the Prediction of Contrast Vision in Patients with New Intraocular Lens Designs,” Optics Letters, 2004, vol. 29 (7), pp. 733-735. |
Terwee T., et al., “Visualization of the Retinal Image in an Eye Model With Spherical and Aspheric, Diffractive, and Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2008, vol. 24 (3), pp. 223-232. |
Alfonso J.F., et al., “Prospective Study of the Acri.LISA bifocal Intraocular Lens,” Journal of Cataract Refractive Surgery, 2007, vol. 33 (11), pp. 1930-1935. |
Canovas C., et al., “Hybrid Adaptive-Optics Visual Simulator,” Optical Letters, 2010, vol. 35 (2), pp. 196-198. |
Cohen, Allen L., “Practical design of a bifocal hologram contact lens or intraocular lens,” Applied Optics, 1992, 31 (19), 3750-3754. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/771,550. |
Diffractive Lenses for Extended Depth of Focus and Presbyopic Correction. Presentation from Wavefront Congress held on Feb. 15, 2008, Rochester, New York. |
Doskolovich L.L., et al., “Special Diffractive Lenses,” SPIE, 1992, vol. 1780, pp. 393-402. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/EP2008/061235, mailed on Mar. 5, 2009, 4 pages. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/EP2009/051783, mailed on Apr. 28, 2009, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US09/042449, mailed on Nov. 5, 2009, 5 pages. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US2010/038167, mailed on Sep. 27, 2010, 2 pages. |
Liou H.L., et al., “Anatomically Accurate, Finite Model Eye for Optical Modeling,” Journal of Optical Society of America, 1997, vol. 14 (8), pp. 1684-1695. |
Marsack J.D., et al., “Metrics of Optical Quality Derived From Wave Aberrations Predict Visual Performance,” Journal of Vision, 2004, vol. 4 (4), pp. 322-328. |
Monsoriu J.A., et al., “Devil's Lenses,” Optics Express, 2007, vol. 15 (21), pp. 13858-13864. |
Norrby S., et al., “Model Eyes for Evaluation of Intraocular Lenses,” Applied Optics, 2007, vol. 46 (26), pp. 6595-6605. |
Piers P.A., et al., “Theoretical Comparison of Aberration-Correcting Customized and Aspheric Intraocular Lenses,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2007, vol. 23 (4), pp. 374-384. |
Siedlecki D., et al., “Radial Gradient index Intraocular Lens: a Theoretical Model,” Journal of Modern Optics, 2008, vol. 55 (4-5), pp. 639-647. |
Van Meeteren A., “Calculations on the Optical Modulation Transfer Function of the Human Eye for White Light,” Optica Acta, 1974, vol. 21 (5), pp. 395-412. |
Vanden Berg T.J., “Analysis of Intraocular Straylight, Especially in Relation to Age,” Optometry and Vision Science, 1995, vol. 72 (2), pp. 52-59. |
Villegas E.A., et al., “Correlation between Optical and Psychophy, Sical Parameters as a Function of Defocus,” Optometry and Vision Science, 2002, vol. 79 (1), pp. 60-67. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110109875 A1 | May 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60047699 | Apr 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12109251 | Apr 2008 | US |
Child | 13006521 | US |