Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/534,444

Personalized Optics

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Nov 23, 2021
Examiner
HASAN, MOHAMMED A
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Percept Technologies Inc.
OA Round
3 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1592 granted / 1761 resolved
+22.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1787
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1761 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting Note: Withdraw the double patenting rejection. 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) 1-11,15,16,385 and 386 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (2018/0241882 A1) in view of Nduka et al (2020/0034608 A1). Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses (refer to figures 1 and 2) Facewear including a face covering disposed to obscure or obstruct at least a portion of a user's face (paragraph 0124); a processor (202) (paragraph 0049) disposed to receive first information, the processor being disposed to present an audio/video effect on the face covering. Lee et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except Facewear and obscure or obstruct. Nduka discloses Facewear and obscure or obstruct (figure 4, paragraph 0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching Facewear and obscure or obstruct in to the Lee et al face covering for the purpose of image an area of skin associated with one or more facial muscles activity as taught by Nduka et al (paragraph 0008). Regarding claim 2, Lee et al discloses wherein the first information includes an audio/video stream (paragraph 0132); the processor (202) is disposed to decode the audio/video stream to provide second information; the processor is disposed to use the second information to present the audio/video effect on the face covering. Regarding claim 3, Lee et al discloses wherein the audio/video effect (paragraph 0132) includes a video image or a moving video. Regarding claim 4, Lee et al discloses, wherein the audio/video effect (paragraph 0132) includes an audio output, a song, voice, or a sound effect. Regarding claim 5, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the presentation device includes one or more of: a lamp or photodiode, a color-alterable device, Regarding claim 6, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the presentation device is perceivable to an observer of the wearer of the facewear. Regarding claim 7, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the audio/video effect includes an image of a mouth disposed to ex- press at least one movement of the user's mouth. Regarding claim 8, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the movement of the user's mouth is disposed to express at least a portion of the user's voice. Regarding claim 9, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the movement of the user's mouth is disposed to show an image to express one or more of: speech, a song, a sound effect, a vocal effect. Regarding claim 10, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the movement of the user's mouth is disposed to show an image to express one or more of: blowing a kiss, breathing, burping, clearing one's throat, coughing, gagging, groaning, hiccups, humming, licking or smack- ing one's lips, panting. Regarding claim 11, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the audio/video effect includes an image disposed to show one or more of: an emoji, an emotion, an emoticon, or another symbol. Regarding claim 15, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the audio/video effect includes an image disposed to show one or more of: an image providing a warning signal, an image providing information to alert a nearby second person. Regarding claim 16, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the nearby second person includes an emergency responder, a law enforcement officer, a volunteer, another person disposed to provide assistance. Regarding claim 385, Lee et al discloses (refer to figures 1 and 2 ) facewear including a presentation device disposed on or near at least a portion of a user's face (paragraph 0124) ; a processor (202) (paragraph 0049) disposed to receive first information, the processor being disposed to present an audio/video effect on the presentation device Lee et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except Facewear and obscure or obstruct. Nduka discloses Facewear and obscure or obstruct (figure 4, paragraph 0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching Facewear and obscure or obstruct in to the Lee et al face covering for the purpose of image an area of skin associated with one or more facial muscles activity as taught by Nduka et al (paragraph 0008). Regarding claim 386, combination of Lee et al and in view of Nduka et al discloses wherein the first information includes an audio/video stream; the processor is disposed to decode the audio/video stream to provide second information; the processor is disposed to use the second information to present the audio/video effect on the presentation device. Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (2018/0241882 A1) in view of Hsu (2016/0260261 A1). Regarding claim 17, Lee et al discloses (refer to figures 1 and 2) including a presentation device disposed on or near at least a portion of a user's face; the processor (202) (paragraph 0049) being disposed to present an audio/video effect on the presentation device. Lee et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except decodes the audio and video. Hsu discloses decodes the audio and video (paragraph 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching decodes the audio and video in to the Lee et al face covering for the purpose of augmented reality or mixed reality see through as taught HSU (paragraph 0004). Regarding claim 18, combination of Lee et al in view of Hsu discloses wherein the first information includes an audio/video stream; the processor is disposed to decode the audio/video stream to provide second information;5the processor is disposed to use the second information to present the audio/video effect on the presentation device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 4. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the audio/video effect includes an image disposed to show one or more of: text in a language being spoken, text in a translation thereof, a known symbol, artwork, a design, a photograph, or an image of a painting, a 4representation of data, medical information with respect to the user, a livestream, a movie, a television image, or a webcam image and the audio/video effect includes an image disposed to show one or more of: an image associated with a game or sport, an image received from among a group of players thereof, an image received from among a group of observers thereof, an image received from among a group of attendees at a political rally, an image showing support for a candidate or an opinion and the audio/video effect includes an image disposed to show one or more of: an image of at least a portion of a concert, an image of at least a portion of a party, an image of at least a portion of a political event, an image of at least a portion of an entertainment event; an image of at least a portion of a sports event. Response to Arguments 5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Conclusion 6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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. /MOHAMMED A HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/4/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 23, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Oct 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Response Filed
May 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Nov 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599498
AUTOMATED IMAGE GUIDANCE FOR OPHTHALMIC SURGERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593972
INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE SPECTRAL INFORMATION FOR OPHTHALMOLOGY APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589611
OPTICAL SWITCH DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591148
EYEGLASS LENS WITH DECORATIVE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582308
OPHTHALMIC APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1761 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month