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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “is comprised of” is informal. It is recommended that the phrase be amended to “comprises” instead. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and shares the objection.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “is comprised of” is informal. It is recommended that the phrase be amended to “comprises” instead. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and shares the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0184857 A1 (“Ato”) in view of US 20170309215 A1 (“Perdices”).
Regarding claim 1, Ato teaches eyewear (Abstract; Figs. 1A, 28) comprising:
a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100);
a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121);
a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A); and
an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’).
Ato does not expressly teach that the liquid crystal has dye. Perdices teaches that liquid crystal may have dye ([170]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by this teaching of Perdices is present as Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored ([144]). The motivation is to allow the liquid crystal separator to emit colored light. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored, while Perdices teaches that dye may be used to color the liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Perdices would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, liquid crystal with dye.
Regarding claim 2, Ato teaches wherein the separator is interposed between the lens substrate and the waveguide stack (Fig. 28 at 703’, 705’, 702’, 701’, 121).
Regarding claim 3, Ato teaches wherein the waveguide stack is comprised of glass ([134]).
Regarding claim 4, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is a plastic ([134]).
Regarding claim 5, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate further comprises a first electrode (Fig. 28 at 703’ & 704’), and the waveguide stack further comprises a second electrode (Fig. 28 at 121, 701’, 702’), wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to control the tint of the separator ([194]).
Regarding claim 8, Ato teaches wherein the processor is coupled to the electrochromic lens ([145], [179]; Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Ato teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Regarding claim 10, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is directly coupled to the waveguide stack with an adhesive ([136], Fig. 28 at 706).
Regarding claim 11, Ato teaches a method of operating eyewear (Abstract; Figs. 1A, 28) having:
a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100);
a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121);
a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A); and
an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’), comprising the steps of:
the processor determining a light transmissive property of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]); and
the processor controlling the electrochromic lens to selectively control the tint of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Ato does not expressly teach that the liquid crystal has dye. Perdices teaches that liquid crystal may have dye ([170]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by this teaching of Perdices is present as Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored ([144]). The motivation is to allow the liquid crystal separator to emit colored light. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored, while Perdices teaches that dye may be used to color the liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Perdices would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, liquid crystal with dye.
Regarding claim 12, Ato teaches wherein the separator is interposed between the lens substrate and the waveguide stack (Fig. 28 at 703’, 705’, 702’, 701’, 121).
Regarding claim 13, Ato teaches herein the waveguide stack is comprised of glass ([134]).
Regarding claim 14, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is a plastic ([134]).
Regarding claim 15, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate further comprises a first electrode (Fig. 28 at 703’ & 704’), and the waveguide stack further comprises a second electrode (Fig. 28 at 121, 701’, 702’), wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to control the tint of the separator ([194]).
Regarding claim 18, Ato teaches wherein the processor is coupled to the electrochromic lens ([145], [179]; Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 19, Ato teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Regarding claim 20, Ato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program code ([200], [450]) which, when executed, is operative to cause an electronic processor ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A) of eyewear having a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100), a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121), a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A) and an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’) to perform the steps of:
determining a light transmissive property of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]); and selectively controlling the electrochromic lens to selectively control the tint of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Ato does not expressly teach that the liquid crystal has dye. Perdices teaches that liquid crystal may have dye ([170]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by this teaching of Perdices is present as Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored ([144]). The motivation is to allow the liquid crystal separator to emit colored light. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ato teaches that the liquid crystal may be colored, while Perdices teaches that dye may be used to color the liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Perdices would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, liquid crystal with dye.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0184857 A1 (“Ato”) in view of US 2018/0322845 A1 (“Machida”).
Regarding claim 1, Ato teaches eyewear (Abstract; Figs. 1A, 28) comprising:
a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100);
a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121);
a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A); and
an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’).
Ato does not expressly teach wherein the separator is an electrolyte. Machida teaches wherein the separator is an electrolyte ([106]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by the teaching of Machida is present as both teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal ([106]). The motivation is to implement the separator. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Ato and Machida teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Machida would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the separator is an electrolyte.
Regarding claim 2, Ato teaches wherein the separator is interposed between the lens substrate and the waveguide stack (Fig. 28 at 703’, 705’, 702’, 701’).
Regarding claim 3, Ato teaches wherein the waveguide stack is comprised of glass ([134]).
Regarding claim 4, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is a plastic ([134]).
Regarding claim 5, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate further comprises a first electrode (Fig. 28 at 703’ & 704’), and the first waveguide substrate further comprises a second electrode (Fig. 28 at 126, 701’, 702’), wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to control the tint of the separator ([194]).
Regarding claim 8, Ato teaches wherein the processor is coupled to the electrochromic lens ([145], [179]; Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Ato teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Regarding claim 10, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is directly coupled to the waveguide stack with an adhesive ([136]; Fig. 28 at 706).
Regarding claim 11, Ato teaches a method of operating eyewear (Abstract; Figs. 1A, 28) having:
a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100);
a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121);
a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A); and
an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’), comprising the steps of:
the processor determining a light transmissive property of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]); and
the processor controlling the electrochromic lens to selectively control the tint of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Ato does not expressly teach wherein the separator is an electrolyte. Machida teaches wherein the separator is an electrolyte ([106]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by the teaching of Machida is present as both teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal ([106]). The motivation is to implement the separator. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Ato and Machida teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Machida would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the separator is an electrolyte.
Regarding claim 12, Ato teaches wherein the separator is interposed between the lens substrate and the waveguide stack (Fig. 28 at 703’, 705’, 702’, 701’).
Regarding claim 13, Ato teaches herein the waveguide stack is comprised of glass ([134]).
Regarding claim 14, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate is a plastic ([134]).
Regarding claim 15, Ato teaches wherein the lens substrate further comprises a first electrode (Fig. 28 at 703’ & 704’), and the waveguide stack further comprises a second electrode (Fig. 28 at 121, 701’, 702’), wherein the first and second electrodes are configured to control the tint of the separator ([194]).
Regarding claim 18, Ato teaches wherein the processor is coupled to the electrochromic lens ([145], [179]; Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 19, Ato teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Regarding claim 20, Ato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program code ([200], [450]) which, when executed, is operative to cause an electronic processor ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A) of eyewear having a frame (Figs. 1A, 28 at 100), a waveguide stack coupled to the frame and configured to display images (Fig. 28 at 702’, 701’/126, 121), a processor configured to process images and display the processed images on the waveguide stack ([200], [450]; Fig. 1A at 18, Fig. 1B at 18A) and an electrochromic lens coupled to the frame and configured to receive and pass a real-world image ([195], [197]; Fig. 28 at 703’, 704’, 705’), wherein the electrochromic lens comprises a lens substrate (Fig. 28 at 703’ OR 703’ and 704’) and a separator (Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is directly coupled to the waveguide stack and has a tint electrically controllable by the processor ([194]-[195]; Fig. 28 at 705’), wherein the separator is a liquid crystal without a glass layer ([190]; Fig. 28 at 705’) to perform the steps of:
determining a light transmissive property of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]); and selectively controlling the electrochromic lens to selectively control the tint of the electrochromic lens ([194]-[195]).
Ato does not expressly teach wherein the separator is an electrolyte. Machida teaches wherein the separator is an electrolyte ([106]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ato by the teaching of Machida is present as both teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal ([106]). The motivation is to implement the separator. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Ato and Machida teach eyeglass displays and Machida teaches that various materials may be used as the separator, including electrolyte and liquid crystal. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ato and Machida would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the separator is an electrolyte.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that element 701’ in the teaching of Ato is not part of a waveguide stack because it is separate from the element 121. Response at 8. This argument is unpersuasive for a number of reasons. Applicant’s own specification considers the electrode 816A to be part of the waveguide stack. The electrode 816A pairs with the electrode 814A (not designated as part of the waveguide stack) to control the separator tint. Applicant’s specification does not describe that the electrode 816A is part of the element 813A, apart from the fact that 813A is designated as part of the waveguide stack. Applicant’s specification also does not specifically describe how elements 813A and 812A are related. The specification only states that the stack as a whole is configured to generate images viewable by a user. Furthermore, the claims do not require any specific relationship amongst elements of the waveguide stack. The term waveguide stack is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to refer to a stack of elements that comprises at least one waveguide. This corresponds to how the term is used in Applicant’s specification, as the electrode 816A is considered to be part of the waveguide stack. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term waveguide stack properly reads onto the teaching of Ato, as explained in the rejections above. Note that both elements 701’ and 121 may be considered waveguides, as both guide light to a user.
Conclusion
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 GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:45am-6:15pm.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights