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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/9/2026.
Amendment to claims 1 and 7, filed 6/9/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 6, filed 1/26/2026, remains in effect.
Cancellation of claim 2, filed 7/7/2025, remains in effect.
Due to the amendment to claims 1 and 7, the previous claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6-7 of the Remarks, Applicant first argues that
“present claim 1 explicitly excludes a liquid crystal system as a half-wave plate. […] Kuboi's optical filter is based on a liquid crystal system that is explicitly excluded from the present claims.”
The argument is unpersuasive because the Applicant argues a newly amended claim limitation, addressed below, and for which Examiner relies on the earlier cited New Focus (providing half-wave plates made of uniaxial crystalline solids instead of liquid crystals), not Kuboi.
Applicant then proceeds to argue that
“[Kuboi does not disclose] a specific functional relationship between the active states that are defined by the angle between the incident polarization and an axis characteristic of the half-wave plate, and the rotation of the polarization plane is twice this angle”.
However, Examiner finds this argument lacks relevance to the rejection of record, which relies on New Focus for such a functional relationship, not Kuboi. Applicant continues to argue that
“New Focus does not disclose or suggest integrating such a half-wave plate into an ophthalmic device”
and that
“Karasawa, however, does not disclose or suggest any structural relationship between rotation and a polarization effect”.
However, all of the above sets forth only improper arguments against the references individually. Applicant is thus reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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, 3-5, 7-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboi et al (US 20180017780 A1, hereinafter “Kuboi”) in view of New Focus (NPL entitled Application Note 3 Polarization and Polarization Control) and Karasawa (US 5663779).
Regarding claim 1, Kuboi discloses an ophthalmic device having adjustable filtering properties, comprising
at least one first polarizer (polarizing film 60),
at least one second polarizer (polarizing film 60, two of which are shown in FIG. 7) which is fixed relative to said first polarizer (polarizing film 60), and
at least one adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) located between said first and second polarizers (i.e. between the two polarizing films 60 in FIG. 7) and configured to rotate a polarization plane of light received from said first polarizer and propagating towards said second polarizer (see ¶s 7 and 37 – regarding the relative rotation of a polarization plane of light, either entering or exiting one of the polarizers, and how such “relative rotation of the polarization planes are achieved by controlling the voltage applied to a liquid crystal device interposed between plurality of the polarizers”);
wherein said adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) is configured to admit a plurality of active states, in each of which said at least one adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) rotates the polarization plane according to a respective and predetermined angle which is distinct from other angles of other active states (See ¶ 37 – regarding how “relative rotation of the polarization planes are achieved by controlling the voltage applied”. Note also that each active state directly corresponds to a relative rotation, i.e. an associated rotation angle, and hence voltage in Kuboi. Since Kuboi, in ¶s 64-73, compares the optical behavior between two voltage applications of 0V and 9V, Kuboi’s nematic liquid crystal material 63 – corresponding to the adjustable filtering member – must therefore admit at least two corresponding active states.
Note also that – as explained in the Response to Arguments of the Final Rejection filed 8/26/2025 – basic consideration of the physics driving Kuboi’s liquid crystal materials qualifies both operating voltages of 0V (associated with some default rotation state) and 9V (with residual twisting of the liquid crystal, and hence persistent polarization rotation) as active states – as well as those corresponding to intermediate states between the two (i.e. due to the conventional Fréedericksz transition associated with the twisted nematic effect being of second-order)
Note lastly that since, by definition, nematic liquid crystal material 63 has a nematic axis which determines rotation angles, the rotation angles must therefore be set during device assembly, and are thus predetermined); and
wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) is a half-wave plate (by definition, a half-wave plate rotates the polarization plane of linearly polarized light – a function performed by nematic liquid crystal material 63; see ¶ 37).
Kuboi does not disclose
wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member is rotatable with respect to said first and second polarizers, said active states being selected by rotating said at least one adjustable filtering member according to distinct angles of rotation;
wherein in each active state, the predetermined angle by which the polarization plane of light is rotated is twice the angle made between the polarization plane of light received from the first polarizer and an axis characteristic of the half-wave plate that is rotated according to the corresponding angle of rotation; and
wherein the half-wave plate is not liquid crystal.
Kuboi and New Focus commonly relate to polarizing elements.
New Focus discloses (see pg. 5):
said active states being selected by rotating said at least one adjustable filtering member (“half-wave plate”) according to distinct angles of rotation (“rotate the wave plate so that the input or output polarization is at the correct angle”)
wherein in each active state, the predetermined angle (2θ) by which the polarization plane of light is rotated is twice the angle (θ) made between the polarization plane of light received from the first polarizer (i.e. “input” light) and an axis characteristic of the half-wave plate (i.e. “fast axis”) that is rotated according to the corresponding angle of rotation (“rotate the wave plate so that the input or output polarization is at the correct angle”); and
wherein the half-wave plate is not liquid crystal (“A wave plate is simply a cut and polished slice of uniaxial crystal”).
Kuboi and Karasawa commonly relate to spectacles supporting polarizing lens elements for manipulating colored light transmission.
Karasawa discloses (see FIG. 6) wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member (second/internal lens element 56) is rotatable with respect to said first and second polarizers (front and rear panes 14 and 16).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kuboi’s filter glasses with teachings of New Focus, in order to facilitate simplified and stabilized polarization adjustments using a uniaxial crystal, and to provide easier access to different active states with greater flexibility/control over the resulting optical profile.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kuboi by adopting design features of Karasawa which enable the rotation of adjustable filtering members, in order to regulate light transmission while also reducing lens contamination (see col. 1 lines 14-54 of Karasawa).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein it comprises at least a frame (see FIG. 6) in which are fixedly mounted said at least one first and at least one second polarizers (two polarizing films 60, both included in “the color changeable optical filter… incorporated into… frame 11 [sic] of the eyeglasses shown in FIG. 6”; see ¶ 38 and note that ‘11’ should read ‘10’).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 3.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said frame is a spectacle frame (see FIG. 6) having two bearing portions (frame 10) into each of which is at least partially mounted one said first polarizer, one said second polarizer and one said adjustable filtering member (polarizing films 60 and nematic liquid crystal material 63, all of which are included in “the color changeable optical filter… incorporated into… frame 11 [sic] of the eyeglasses shown in FIG. 6”; see ¶ 38 and note that ‘11’ should read ‘10’).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 4.
Karasawa discloses (see FIGs. 5-8) wherein said frame (spectacle frame 6) comprises a synchronization member (belt 100) connected to said two bearing portions (individual lens assemblies 11) and configured to synchronize the selected active states of said adjustable filtering members (second/internal lens elements 56) which are mounted in said two bearing portions (individual lens assemblies 11), so that the corresponding angles of rotation of the respective polarization planes are similar. (Refer to col. 5 line 44 to col. 6 line 8, describing rotation of internal lens elements 56, corresponding to adjustable filtering members, and how belt 100 is involved in their synchronization. Note also that, as established above in regards to claim 1, each active state corresponds to a rotation angle for the polarization plane, which is further tied to the orientation of each adjustable filtering member. Thus, by synchronizing the rotation of both members, their associated angles of rotation of polarization planes will be equal or “similar”, and their selected active states will be synchronized.)
Regarding claim 7, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Karasawa further discloses (see FIG. 7-8 and col. 5 line 44 to col. 6 line 8) wherein it comprises at least an actuator (internal gear 104) configured for rotating said at least one adjustable filtering member (internal lens element 56), said actuator (internal gear 104) extending from a carrier (internal gearing 108) of said ophthalmic device (note from FIG. 8 that internal gearing 108’s teeth engage/carry the teeth of internal gear 104) which is fixed to and at least partially surrounds said at least one adjustable filtering member (second/internal lens element 56, the circumference of which is partially spanned/surrounded by internal gearing 108’s teeth), or is laminated on said at least one adjustable filtering member.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said at least one second polarizer (polarizing film 60) has a polarizing axis which is oriented parallel or perpendicular to a polarizing axis of said first polarizer (polarizing film 60; see ¶ 22 regarding parallelly/perpendicularly oriented polarization planes of the two polarizers).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
1077
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 8 of Karasawa is annotated to identify an approximately 45° range of rotation angles spanned by internal gearing teeth 108. This would translate to a 45° range of rotation for the internal lens element 56 that corresponds to Applicant’s adjustable filtering member.)]New Focus further discloses (see pg. 5) wherein said adjustable filtering member (“half-wave plate”) is configured to rotate said polarization plane of light received from said at least one first polarizer on a range of angles of rotation (“rotate the wave plate so that the input or output polarization is at the correct angle”).
Karasawa further discloses a range of angles of rotation of 45° between 0° and 45° of the adjustable filtering member (second/internal lens element 56) (see annotated FIG. 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
New Focus further discloses wherein said adjustable filtering member (“half-wave plate”) is a half-wave plate that is flat or curved (“A wave plate is simply a cut and polished slice of uniaxial crystal, like that shown in Fig. 4”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein it comprises at least one ophthalmic lens on which is fixed or which is integrally formed with at least one of said first and second polarizers. (See ¶ 16: “the polarizer [i.e., polarizing films 60] may be attached, as required, to a substrate in the form of a prescribed lens”.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 11.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said at least one ophthalmic lens has corrective optical properties. (See ¶ 16: “the polarizer [i.e. polarizing films 60] may be attached, as required, to a substrate in the form of a prescribed lens”. Note further that lens prescriptions are generally given for correcting eyesight.)
Regarding claim 13, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) is electrically controlled (see ¶ 38 regarding electrical connection for voltage application).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said adjustable filtering properties are configured for varying at least one of darkness, colours, contrast enhancer, and spectral behaviours depending on wavelengths (see ¶s 39 and 64-73 regarding control of hue, chroma, and lightness).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 9.
New Focus further discloses (see pg. 5) wherein said adjustable filtering member (“half-wave plate”) is configured to rotate said polarization plane of light received from said at least one first polarizer on a range of angles of rotation (“rotate the wave plate so that the input or output polarization is at the correct angle”).
Karasawa further discloses a range of angles of rotation of 30° between 7.5° and 37.5° of the adjustable filtering member (second/internal lens element 56) (see annotated FIG. 8 above, where a range of angles of rotation of 45° between 0° and 45° is identified; this entirely encompasses the claimed range).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboi in view of New Focus and Karasawa, as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Pinnow et al (US 4197008, hereinafter “Pinnow”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 13.
Modified Kuboi does not wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member is controlled by applying a predetermined voltage value selected amongst a range of voltage values, each voltage value corresponding to a respective active state and thus a respective predetermined angle of rotation of the polarization plane.
Kuboi and Pinnow commonly relate to tunable optical filters
Pinnow discloses wherein said at least one adjustable filtering member (birefringent crystal 34) is controlled by applying a predetermined voltage value selected amongst a range of voltage values, each voltage value corresponding to a respective active state and thus a respective predetermined angle of rotation of the polarization plane. (See FIG. 2 and col. 5, lines 1-15; Pinnow discloses voltage-dependent rotation of birefringent crystal 34 which – when incorporated into the modified Kuboi together with New Focus and Karasawa – enables mapping of each voltage value to (1) a rotation angle for the adjustable filtering member, (2) a corresponding rotation angle for the polarization plane, and (3) an active state.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kuboi with Pinnow, in order to achieve hands-free operation of the adjustable filtering member and reduce the human error for more precise, repeatable, and/or rapid adjustments.
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights