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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered and considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office action mailed 11/6/2025 are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either newly applied or are reiterated and are the only rejections and/or objections presently applied to the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-17 canceled.
Priority
The instant application claims no benefit of priority. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is March 31, 2021.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Wang et al. "Explore technology innovation and intelligence for IoT (Internet of Things) based eyewear technology", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 127, 2018, Pages 281-290, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.001) in view of Lamrani et al. (US-20210007670), Bostick et al. (US-20180152627), and Béduer et al. (US-20180335647).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Wang teaches receiving, by a mobile device, biometric data from one or more sensors located on a contact lens substrate on a user’s eye, the biometric data comprising, at least in part, a moisture level of the user’s eye (Page 8 Discussion "Smart contact lenses are mostly used for electrochemical sensing, light sensing, biosensing and tear monitoring applications" And page 9 col 1 paragraph 3 "For example, Sensimed, a Swiss startup, has embedded a wireless ocular telemetry sensor (OTS) in contact lenses, using MEMS to measure intraocular pressure changes resulting from changes to eye curvature (Mansouri and Shaarawy, 2011). The collected data is transmitted wirelessly to help monitor intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients").
Wang also teaches receiving a plurality of environmental parameters associated with the user’s location using surrounding internet-of-things (loT) devices, the contact lens substrate being communicatively connected with the IoT devices and the mobile device (Page 1 Abstract "Advances in wireless Internet and mobile communications devices have driven significant development in the Internet of Things (IoT), bringing a stream of innovative technologies and services. This study explores the technology innovation and intelligence for IoT (internet of things) based eyewear technology").
Wang does not explicitly teach: the contact lens substrate further comprises a tear fluid storage chamber; collecting tear fluid in the tear fluid storage chamber during normal secretion and blinking; determining that the moisture level in the user’s eye based on the received biometric data from sensor on the contact lens; comparing moisture level to a predetermined threshold based on moisture level patterns of the user's eye; nor in response to determining that the moisture level in the user’s eye is below the predetermined threshold, releasing, by the mobile device, the collected tear fluid from the tear fluid storage chamber to temporarily relieve dry eye symptoms.
However, Lamrani teaches the contact lens substrate further comprises a tear fluid storage chamber, and collecting tear fluid in the tear fluid storage chamber during normal secretion and blinking (Para.0002 "According to Etzkorn, a contact lens can include a substrate that forms at least part of a body of the contact lens, and one or more cavities disposed within the substrate is configured to collect and store tear fluid over time when the contact lens is worn over an eye").
However, Bostick teaches determining that the moisture level in the user’s eye based on the received biometric data from sensor on the contact lens (Para.0014 "obtain data relating to blinking patterns/rates from a wearable computing device, such as wearable computing eyewear (e.g., smart contact lenses or smart glasses). Additionally, or alternatively, the camera device may obtain data relating to moisture level patterns from the wearable computing device"), and comparing moisture level to a predetermined threshold based on moisture level patterns of the user's eye (Para.0015 "For example, the camera device may include an optimal photograph capture timing component that determines a time when specific criteria are met for capturing a photograph (e.g., criteria such as when all individuals eyes are open based on the blinking pattern of the individuals or when the eye moisture level of certain individuals satisfies a threshold based on the moisture level patterns)").
However, Béduer teaches in response to determining that the moisture level in the user’s eye is below the predetermined threshold, releasing, by the mobile device, the collected tear fluid from the tear fluid storage chamber to temporarily relieve dry eye symptoms (Para.0020 "Namely, during the blinking cycle, the varying degree of hydration of the eye can be exploited with a suitable choice of compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of the soft material to achieve substantial compression and release to enhance tear fluid turnover in the pore space of the soft porous material").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IoT environmental measurements and automation methods of Wang with the methods as taught by Lamrani in order to collect information about the composition of the user's tears (Para.0002 "modifying a contact lens to collect information about the composition of the user's tears"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both applications involve contact lenses storing tear fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IoT environmental measurements and automation methods of Wang with the moisture level readings and thresholding as taught by Bostick in order to determine an optimal photograph capture timing (Para.0014 "The present invention generally relates to determining optimal photograph capture timing and, more particularly, to determining optimal photograph capture timing based on data from wearable computer eyewear devices"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods and applications are used in the same kind of device (a smart contact lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the IoT environmental measurements and automation methods of Wang with the methods as taught by Béduer in order to increase the tear fluid turnover, allowing more inflammatory mediators commonly present to be filtered out (Para.0018 "These features allow contacting and neutralizing the inflammatory mediators commonly present in e.g. the tear fluid without systemically or locally releasing potentially harmful active agents in the patient's body. On the contrary, the smart contact lens acts as a sponge, absorbing such inflammatory mediators and removing them when the contact lens is removed"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both are embodied in a smart contact lens.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Wang also teaches the plurality of environmental parameters comprises at least one of a room temperature, a humidity level, a light intensity in a current location of the user, and air flow direction (Page 8 paragraph 2 "From the literature, this study organized the wearable device IoT functions. These functions are placed in the top row (“How”) of the matrix. IoT development function items retrieved from the literature review include: Eye state detection (F1) Detection of eye disease (F2), Detection of non-eye disease (F3), Light sensing (F4), Distance sensing (F5), Temperature sensing (F6), Balance detection (F7), Motion tracking (F8), Identity verification (F9), and Message reminder (F10)").
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Wang and Bostick also teach the biometric data further comprises information regarding at least one of a position of the contact lens substrate within the user’s eye, a movement pattern, a blinking pattern, and a tear evaporation rate (Wang page 9 col 1 paragraph 1 "Motion sensors are primarily used to track and record the user's eye movements" and Bostick para.0014 "obtain data relating to blinking patterns/rates from a wearable computing device, such as wearable computing eyewear (e.g., smart contact lenses or smart glasses). Additionally, or alternatively, the camera device may obtain data relating to moisture level patterns from the wearable computing device").
Claims 6, 13, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Wang et al. "Explore technology innovation and intelligence for IoT (Internet of Things) based eyewear technology", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 127, 2018, Pages 281-290, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.001) in view of Lamrani et al. (US-20210007670), Bostick et al. (US-20180152627), and Béduer et al. (US-20180335647) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Spivack et al. (US-20190260870).
Wang et al. in view of Lamrani et al., Bostick et al., and Béduer et al. are applied to claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-20.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 18, Wang in view of Bostick teach the method of Claims 1, 8, and 15 on which these claims depend.
Wang, Lamrani, Bostick, nor Béduer explicitly teach displaying a guide for the user to adjust at least one of an orientation angle of a screen display, a way of holding the screen display, and an eye level using an augmented reality system.
However, Spivack teaches a method for a smart contact lens user to select options from a control interface with their gaze or some other operation that would adjust whatever the selected control option does, for example brightness or zoom (Para.0188 "In a further embodiment, to select a choice while in control mode the user moves their finger or gaze onto an option in the control or a sub-control—and then they can continue (e.g., if the chosen option allows it) to move their finger or gaze within the field of the display to further adjust whatever that selected control option does (for example up/down can be brightness, left/right can be zoom)" and para.0191 "Another option is that while in the context of a particular choice within control mode, the user can move a receiver or their device to operate whatever that choice allows. For example, if they use control mode to select a particular choice they can then move their device to control some operation—for example by sensing the velocity, angle, gyroscope output, geo-position, or other orientation or movement of the device as way to input to the chosen control.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Wang, Lamrani, Bostick, and Béduer as taught by Spivack in order to have an interface system where a user can select from various options in a tree of options (Para.0174 "In some embodiments, a tree of various control interfaces and options can be implemented and used in any device to implement this user interface. This user interface can work in any display device ([], smart lenses or smart contact lenses, []) that can detect a users intended location through [] a gesture detection system (e.g., hand, finger, arm, head, torso, limbs, etc.) and/or a gaze detection or eye detection system (that detects where a user is looking or how their eye(s) or parts of their eyes (e.g., eyeball, pupils, eye foci point, eye lid, etc.) may be moving)."). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods are embodied in a smart contact lens.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/5/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Béduer does not teach, suggest, or discuss a process of alleviating a dry eye of a user by releasing collected tear fluid from a tear fluid chamber, using an osmosis mechanism, to relieve the dry eye symptoms, nor do the other cited art (Remarks 1/5/2026 Pages 3-4). Examiner notes that Béduer does in fact teach relieving dry eye symptoms of a user (para.0034 "the ophthalmic pathology is selected from the list comprising [] dry eye disease"). Béduer also suggests releasing collected tears from a kind of storage chamber by an osmotic mechanism (Para.0020 "Namely, during the blinking cycle, the varying degree of hydration of the eye can be exploited with a suitable choice of compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of the soft material to achieve substantial compression and release to enhance tear fluid turnover in the pore space of the soft porous material"), not to mention an explicit chamber as disclosed by Lamrani. Furthermore, the specific release mechanism is not explicitly defined further than an "osmosis mechanism", therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of cited art renders this limitation obvious for the reasons listed immediately above in this paragraph, as well as in the section regarding 35 USC 103.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 18-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12307549 in view of Lamrani et al. (US-20210007670), Bostick et al. (US-20180152627), and Béduer et al. (US-20180335647).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both involve a smart (or electronic) contact lens device, collecting environmental parameters of surroundings, and displaying an augmented reality system in the contact lens. Additionally, both contain groups of sensors comprising an accelerometer, barometer, gyroscope, heart rate monitor, and an orientation sensor.
While US-12307549 does not explicitly teach tear collection/storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify these methods, with those taught by Lamrani as described above for claim 1 of the instant application, in order to collect information about the composition of the user's tears (Para.0002 "modifying a contact lens to collect information about the composition of the user's tears"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both applications involve contact lenses storing tear fluid.
While US-12307549 does not explicitly teach determining and comparing moistures levels to thresholds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify these methods, with those taught by Bostick as described above for claim 1 of the instant application, in order to determine an optimal photograph capture timing (Para.0014 "The present invention generally relates to determining optimal photograph capture timing and, more particularly, to determining optimal photograph capture timing based on data from wearable computer eyewear devices"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods and applications are used in the same kind of device (a smart contact lens).
While US-12307549 does not explicitly teach releasing collected tears to relieve dry eyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify these methods, with those taught by Béduer as described above for claim 1 of the instant application, in order to increase the tear fluid turnover, allowing more inflammatory mediators commonly present to be filtered out (Para.0018 "These features allow contacting and neutralizing the inflammatory mediators commonly present in e.g. the tear fluid without systemically or locally releasing potentially harmful active agents in the patient's body. On the contrary, the smart contact lens acts as a sponge, absorbing such inflammatory mediators and removing them when the contact lens is removed"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both are embodied in a smart contact lens.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aydındoğan et al., "Applications of augmented reality in ophthalmology [Invited]," Biomed. Opt. Express 12, 511-538 (2021)
Kim et al. "Recent advances in smart contact lenses." Advanced Materials Technologies 5.1 (2020): 1900728.
Maulvi et al. "Design and optimization of a novel implantation technology in contact lenses for the treatment of dry eye syndrome: In vitro and in vivo evaluation." Acta biomaterialia 53 (2017): 211-221.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is (571)272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at 571-270-3062. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686