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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: Species I, Para. 0152 and 0157 (Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15 and 17-20) directed towards an eye training system with spectacles that comprise an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the housings; Species II, Para. 0157 (Claim 21) directed towards an eye training system with spectacles that comprise a focus-tunable lens is comprised in the housing that has a protective window on a side of the housing; Species III, Para. 0162-0163 (Claim 22) directed towards an eye training system with spectacles that comprise a focus-tunable lens is completely integrated in stacked layers of the optical assembly, wherein each optical assembly comprises: a first layer which is a cover glass or a cover polymer for protecting the membrane-based focus-tunable lens, a spacer layer for providing sufficient space for the membrane to bulge outwards of the container of the lens, a third layer which comprises the elastic deformable membrane of the liquid lens that covers a reservoir layer laterally enclosing the container volume and the liquid inside the container volume, and a cover layer that is arranged on an outwards facing side of the optical assembly and which comprises an actuator and a pusher element that can be pushed inward or outward, such that a pressure can be adjusted to the liquid inside the container volume.
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Jacqueline M. Sherman on 03/31/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15 and 17-20 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. Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims “a housing, wherein the focus-tunable lens is comprised in the housing” and “an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the housings”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to how the claimed adjustment assembly can adjust a lateral distance between a single housing. For purposes of expediting prosecution, the Examiner interprets the phrase “a housing, wherein the focus-tunable lens is comprised in the housing” to be read --each one of the two optical assemblies comprise a housing, wherein the focus-tunable lens is disposed in the housing -- and the phrase “an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the housings” to read --an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the two housings--.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2015/0219929) in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 2019/011612; already of record), and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0041643).
Regarding claim 1, Silver discloses, an eye training system with the spectacles (Figs. 1a-7) that comprise at least the following components:
a frame member (102) configured to keep the spectacles (100) on the head of a person wearing the spectacles (Para. 0076),
two optical assemblies (104a-c and 106a-c) arranged at the frame member, wherein the optical assemblies are arranged such at the frame member that when the spectacles are worn on the head of the person said optical assemblies are in front of the eyes of the person (Para. 0076), wherein each optical assembly comprises a focus-tunable lens with an adjustable focal length (Para. 0077-0078), and each one of the two optical assemblies comprise a housing (see each portion of 102 associated with and surrounding 104a-c and 106a-c);
a control circuit (710, 712, 714) comprising a processor, wherein the control circuit is configured to control the focal lengths of the focus-tunable lenses in response to data received from an external computer or provided by the processor (Para. 0079 and 0120).
Silver does not explicitly disclose each of the focus-tunable lenses is a membrane-based liquid lens, the focus-tunable lens is disposed in the housing, wherein the membrane-based liquid lens comprises a container that is transparent at least along an optical axis of the optical assembly, the container comprising a first and a second face arranged essentially opposite of each other, wherein the container comprises a transparent liquid between the first and the second face and wherein the second face of said container comprises a transparent elastically deformable membrane for adjusting the focal strength of the focus-tunable lens, and each optical assembly is configured to adjust for astigmatism and prism by compensating for higher order effects using the membrane.
Mastrangelo teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in spectacles (Figs. 1-3C) that it would have been desirable to make each of the focus-tunable lenses (100, 300) is a membrane-based liquid lens (Para. 0046-0048), the focus-tunable lens is disposed in the housing (see 100 of Fig. 1), wherein the membrane-based liquid lens (Para. 0046) comprises a container (Para. 0046) that is transparent at least along an optical axis of the optical assembly, the container comprising a first (see 310) and a second face (see 302) arranged essentially opposite of each other, wherein the container comprises a transparent liquid (306) between the first and the second face and wherein the second face of said container comprises a transparent elastically deformable membrane (302) for adjusting the focal strength of the focus-tunable lens (Para. 0049), and each optical assembly is configured to adjust for astigmatism and prism by compensating for higher order effects using the membrane (Para. 0075-0076 and see “Table 2”; note, discloses using the membrane to compensate for higher order effects such as coma, trefoil and spherical aberration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the focus-tunable lenses is a membrane-based liquid lens, the focus-tunable lens is disposed in the housing, wherein the membrane-based liquid lens comprises a container that is transparent at least along an optical axis of the optical assembly, the container comprising a first and a second face arranged essentially opposite of each other, wherein the container comprises a transparent liquid between the first and the second face and wherein the second face of said container comprises a transparent elastically deformable membrane for adjusting the focal strength of the focus-tunable lens, and each optical assembly is configured to adjust for astigmatism and prism by compensating for higher order effects using the membrane as taught by the spectacles of Mastrangelo in the spectacles of Silver since Mastrangelo teaches it is known to include these features in spectacles for the purpose of providing robust and low cost spectacles that effectively correct a user’s vision.
Silver in view of Mastrangelo does not explicitly disclose an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the two housings.
Chang teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to include an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the two housings (Para. 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the two housings as taught by the eye training system of Chang in the combination of Silver in view of Mastrangelo since Chang teaches it is known to include this feature in eye training system for the purpose of providing eye training system that is accurately and correctly positioned and aligned.
Regarding claim 2, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, the eye training system further comprises a radio module (714) configured to wireless receive the data from the external computer (Para. 0120).
Regarding claim 3, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, the eye training system further comprises the external computer, wherein the computer is configured or comprises means to wireless transmit the data to the spectacles (Para. 0120).
Regarding claim 4, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, the eye training system (Figs. 1a-7) comprises a computer program stored on the external computer and/or the processor and/or a memory storage (Para. 0120), wherein the computer program is configured to cause the external computer or the processor to generate the data causing the optical assemblies to execute a sequence of focal lengths (Para. 0120), particularly a predefined sequence of focal lengths to be adjusted at the spectacles, particularly wherein the computer program is further configured to cause the external computer to transmit the data (Para. 0120).
Regarding claim 5, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, at least one of optical assemblies comprises a shutter (104b, 106b) configured to alter a transmission of the optical assembly (Para. 0076 and 0078), particularly wherein the shutter is configured to adopt a first state and a second state (Para. 0078 and 0120), wherein in the first state the corresponding optical assembly is transparent, wherein in the second state the corresponding optical assembly is optically shut, particularly wherein the shutter is a mechanical shutter (Para. 0078 and 0120), and wherein the shutter is controlled by the control circuit particularly with an actuator arranged at the shutter, particularly wherein the data is configured to control the shutter via the control circuit (Para. 0078 and 0120).
Regarding claim 10, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Mastrangelo further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to make the membrane-based focus-tunable lens is configured to compensate for coma, particularly for coma induced by gravity (Para. 0056 and 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the membrane-based focus-tunable lens is configured to compensate for coma, particularly for coma induced by gravity as taught by the eye training system of Mastrangelo in the combination of Silver and Chang since Mastrangelo teaches it is known to include these features in an eye training system for the purpose of providing an eye training system with effective vision correction and enhanced optical performance.
Regarding claim 11, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, the spectacles comprise an actuator system configured and arranged to adjust the focal lengths of the focus-tunable lenses of the optical assemblies, particularly wherein the actuator system comprises an actuator for each optical assembly, wherein the actuator system comprises at least one of: an electromagnetic actuator, such as a voice coil actuator, comprising an electromagnet or an electro permanent magnet; a piezoelectric actuator or a piezo motor; a stepper motor; a magneto strictive actuator; an electrostatic actuator; an electroactive polymer actuator (Para. 0076-0078 and 0080).
Regarding claim 14, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, the focus-tunable lenses are comprised in a glass or a transparent polymer laterally surrounding the focus-tunable lens (104a-c and 106a-c and associated text).
Regarding claim 18, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, comprising an external computer or a processor (Para. 0079-0080) computer program for controlling the adjustable focal length of the spectacles of the eye training system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the computer program comprises computer program code that when executed on the external computer and/or on the processor causes the external computer to transmit data to the spectacles and/or causes the processor to provide data to the control circuit that cause the optical assemblies to adjust the focal length of the focus-tunable lenses, the polarization and/or the transmission of the optical assemblies, particularly according to a predefined sequence stored in the computer program (Para. 0076-0079 and 0120).
Regarding claim 20, Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Silver further discloses, recorded data are received and evaluated by the external computer and/or the processor (Para. 0076-0079 and 0120), wherein in response to the recorded data, the external computer and/or the processor generates and transmits data to the optical assemblies (Para. 0076-0079 and 0120) such as to adjust at least one of: a focal length, a cylinder or a prism of at least one focus-adjustable lens, A shutter state of at least one optical assembly, A polarizer state of the first and/or second polarizer of at least one optical assembly (Para. 0076-0079 and 0120).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2015/0219929) in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 2019/011612; already of record) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0041643) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yadin et al. (US 11,360,330).
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang does not disclose at least one optical assembly comprises a first adjustable optical polarizer configured to adjust the polarization of light transmitted by the optical assembly, at least one of the optical assemblies comprises a second particularly adjustable optical polarizer, wherein the first and the second polarizer form the shutter, and the first polarizer is controlled by the control circuit particularly with an actuator arranged at the first polarizer for adjusting the polarization of the transmitted light, particularly wherein the data is configured to control the first polarizer via the control circuit.
Yadin teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to make at least one optical assembly comprises a first adjustable optical polarizer configured to adjust the polarization of light transmitted by the optical assembly (see 40A, B of Fig. 1A and associated text), at least one of the optical assemblies comprises a second particularly adjustable optical polarizer, wherein the first and the second polarizer form the shutter (see 40A, B of Fig. 1A and associated text), and the first polarizer is controlled by the control circuit particularly with an actuator arranged at the first polarizer for adjusting the polarization of the transmitted light, particularly wherein the data is configured to control the first polarizer via the control circuit (see 40A, B of Fig. 1A and associated text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least one optical assembly comprises a first adjustable optical polarizer configured to adjust the polarization of light transmitted by the optical assembly, at least one of the optical assemblies comprises a second particularly adjustable optical polarizer, wherein the first and the second polarizer form the shutter, and the first polarizer is controlled by the control circuit particularly with an actuator arranged at the first polarizer for adjusting the polarization of the transmitted light, particularly wherein the data is configured to control the first polarizer via the control circuit as taught by the eye training system of Yadin in the combination of Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang since Yadin teaches it is known to include these features in an eye training system for the purpose of providing an eye training system with improved optical quality and effective vision correction.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2015/0219929) in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 2019/011612; already of record) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0041643) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tate et al. (US 2015/0185503).
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang does not disclose the spectacles, particularly each optical assembly, comprise an imaging device such as a camera and/or an illumination source, arranged such on the spectacles that the imaging device can record an eye of a person wearing the spectacles.
Tate teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to make the spectacles, particularly each optical assembly, comprise an imaging device such as a camera and/or an illumination source, arranged such on the spectacles that the imaging device can record an eye of a person wearing the spectacles (Para. 0022, 0031 and 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spectacles, particularly each optical assembly, comprise an imaging device such as a camera and/or an illumination source, arranged such on the spectacles that the imaging device can record an eye of a person wearing the spectacles as taught by the eye training system of Tate in the combination of Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang since Tate teaches it is known to include this feature in an eye training system for the purpose of providing an eye training system that effectively and accurately corrects vision.
Regarding claim 17, Silver, Mastrangelo, Chang and Tate discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Tate further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to make each focus-tunable lens comprises a prism for adjusting the light path of transmitted light through the respective optical assembly (Para. 0025, 0046 and see 140, 145 of Figs. 1A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the eye training system of Tate in the combination of Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang since Tate teaches it is known to include this feature in an eye training system for the purpose of providing an eye training system that effectively and accurately corrects vision.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 2015/0219929) in view of Mastrangelo et al. (US 2019/011612; already of record) in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0041643) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Heugten et al. (US 2020/0331219).
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang does not disclose each optical assembly comprises a rigid corrective optical element, such as a lens, particularly a cylindrical lens.
Van Heugten teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an eye training system that it would have been desirable to make each optical assembly comprises a rigid corrective optical element, such as a lens, particularly a cylindrical lens (Para. 0048 and see 132, 134 of Figs. 1A-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each optical assembly comprises a rigid corrective optical element, such as a lens, particularly a cylindrical lens as taught by the eye training system of Van Heugten in the combination of Silver, Mastrangelo and Chang since Van Heugten teaches it is known to include this feature in an eye training system for the purpose of providing an eye training system with effective vision correction and a lens with improved optical quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mirlay (US 2013/0113894) and Palanisamy et al. (US 2016/0341966) disclose eye training system with spectacles that include two optical assemblies arranged at the frame member, each one of the two optical assemblies comprise a housing, wherein a focus-tunable lens is disposed in each housing and an adjustment assembly for adjusting a lateral distance between the two housings.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 04/01/2026
Prosecution Insights