DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 6/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hough et al. (US 2017/0060399).
Regarding claim 1, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) discloses a digital vision correction system to at least partially address a user's reduced visual acuity, the system comprising: a user mobile device 100 comprising a processing unit 110, a digital data storage 130 to store a digital vision correction parameter associated with the user's reduced visual acuity, and a wireless network interface ([0013]), and a distinct electronic display device ([0022]) comprising a light field display operable to render digital content ([0022-0023]), a network interface operable to interface with the user mobile device to access said vision correction parameter ([0022]), and a processing unit ([0022]), communicatively linked to said light field display and network interface, and operable on pixel data associated with said digital content to adjust a rendering thereof via said light field display as a function of said digital vision correction parameter so to at least partially address the user's reduced visual acuity ([0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein the system comprises a plurality said distinct electronic display device, each operable to respectively interface with said user mobile device to access said digital vision correction parameter and thereby output vision-corrected digital content ([0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein said vision correction parameter is entered or derived from a manual user input ([0082]).
Regarding claim 9, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein said user mobile device comprises a light field enabled display operable to render vision-corrected digital content ([0052]), and wherein said vision correction parameter is dynamically adjusted via a graphical interface rendered on said user mobile device ([0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein said user mobile device comprises one of a mobile communication device, an electronic key, an electronic key fob, a digital identification card, and/or a wearable device ([0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough et al. (US 2017/0060399), as applied to claim 1 or 2, and further in view of Couse (US 2012/0322376).
Regarding claim 3, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein each the distinct electronic display device is further operable to modify the vision correction parameter ([0061]), and access a distinct vision correction parameter for a distinct user upon interfacing with a distinct user mobile device ([0022]). Hough does not disclose wherein each said distinct electronic display device is further operable to automatically delete said vision correction parameter therefrom upon termination of a given user's interaction therewith. Within the same field of endeavor, Couse (figures 1 & 3; [0030]) discloses this teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this teaching for the purpose of deleting user parameters when the pairing is terminated thereby improving security between the devices.
Regarding claim 4, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein the distinct electronic display device comprises an onboard vehicular data processing device ([0029]), and wherein the vision correction parameter is accessed from the user mobile device upon wirelessly connecting the user mobile device with said onboard vehicular data processing device ([0029]). Hough does not disclose wherein wirelessly connecting is wirelessly pairing. Within the same field of endeavor, Couse (figure 1; [0015]) discloses this teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this teaching for the purpose of wirelessly pairing device thereby connecting devices for data transfer while eliminating the use of physical cables.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough et al. (US 2017/0060399), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bakar et al. (US 2008/0189173).
Regarding claim 5, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein said distinct electronic display device comprises a different electronic device ([0029]), and wherein said vision correction parameter is accessed from the user mobile device upon wirelessly interfacing the user mobile device with the different electronic device ([0022]). Hough does not disclose wherein a different electronic device is an electronic kiosk. Within the same field of endeavor, Bakar (Title and Abstract; figures 1-4; [0007]-[0008]) discloses this teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this teaching for the purpose of providing an electronic kiosk thereby allowing a user to determine correction parameters using an easily accessible kiosk system.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hough et al. (US 2017/0060399), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bouchier et al. (US 2016/0216515).
Regarding claim 6, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) does not disclose wherein said communication interface comprises at least one of a bluetooth interface or a Near Field Communication (NFC) interface. Within the same field of endeavor, Bouchier ([0008]) discloses this teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this teaching for the purpose of using Bluetooth connection to communicate visual parameters thereby allowing the visual parameters to be sent to the display device using a common wireless connection to enhance the quality of the corrected images displayed.
Regarding claim 8, Hough (figures 1, 3 & 7) further discloses wherein the vision correction parameter is entered or derived from a network-interfacing connection to a terminal. Hough does not disclose wherein a terminal is an eye care specialist terminal. Within the same field of endeavor, Bouchier ([0008]) discloses this teaching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this teaching for the purpose of sending visual parameters from an eye care specialist terminal thereby allowing the visual parameters determined by a specialist in the field of vision to be sent to the display device to enhance the quality of the corrected images displayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/28/25
Prosecution Insights