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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/26/2026.
Cancellation of claim 6, filed 1/26/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to claim 1, filed 1/26/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 2, filed 7/7/2025, remains in effect.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 5-9 of the Remarks, filed 1/26/2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 1/26/2026, not the Final Rejection, filed 8/26/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below. Examiner also noted several issues in Applicant’s arguments – some again raising earlier issues that Examiner had already addressed in prior office actions with repeated responses/reminders for Applicant, and others indicative of a greater misunderstanding of the relevant arguments, and scientific bases, of rejections. The main issues are noted as follows:
On pg. 5 of the Remarks, Applicant an earlier argument that “the optical filter of Kuboi includes a single active state”. However, Applicant is reminded that a plurality of active states was already explained in the Non-Final Rejection filed 4/7/2025 (¶ 15D) and the Final Rejection filed 8/26/2025 (¶ 13D). Applicant is also reminded that – following earlier attempts to argue their prohibitively narrow interpretation of Kuboi only supporting a single active state – Examiner elaborated further on how multiple active states can be found in the 8/26/2025 Final Rejection (¶ 8) and the 11/20/2025 Advisory action (2), which Applicant is invited to revisit.
Applicant also argues here that “[Kuboi] does not allow for selection of a further active state by rotating the liquid crystal device”. This statement is essentially irrelevant, however, as it relates to a feature which was addressed using a combination of references – not Kuboi alone. See also items C-D below.
Next, on pgs. 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicant continues again with earlier arguments, this time advancing their prohibitively narrow interpretation of the term “half-wave plate” (“This is property is part of the definition of a half-wave plate”, “twisted nematic liquid crystals cannot be equated to half-wave plates”). And while Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s citation of the specification and provision of various limiting descriptions to support their preferred interpretation, Examiner notes that none of this is particularly relevant to how an ordinary practitioner may interpret the phrase. Even Applicant’s passages, cited from pgs. 2 and 16 of the specification, fail to establish any sort of special definition for the term “half-wave plate” – nor do they appear to require reading the actual claim according to Applicant’s restrictively narrow and preferred interpretation.
Examiner thus again rejects this narrow interpretation and refers Applicant to the relevant functional characteristic of a half-wave plate cited/explained/mapped in the previous 4/7/2025 Non-Final Rejection (¶ 16) , 8/26/2025 Final Rejection (¶ 13E), and 11/20/2025 Advisory action (1) – the last of which where Examiner noted that referring to analogous liquid crystal elements as “half-wave plates” is common in the literature. On pg. 8 of the Remarks, Applicant has expressed some difficulty in locating a suitable reference that would confirm this basic fact for themselves, however. Accordingly, Examiner suggests US 5870159 A as an exemplary patent reference – where relevant forms of usage are easily found (“liquid crystal retarders”, “LC half-wave plate”, “LC half-wave retarder”, etc.) – but notes other examples can certainly be found in non-patent literature (e.g. by simple web search), as this is rather basic semantics.
Accompanying/supplementing the above arguments, Applicant also makes some troubling and apparently misguided statements on pgs. 8 of the Remarks.
For example, Applicant appears to suggest that relevant liquid crystal systems do not include birefringent materials (“half-wave plates are plates made from birefringent material… In other words, liquid crystal devices and wave-plates… are different”). However, this is simply counterfactual.
Applicant also states that “Liquid crystals are based on… the applied electric field. The rotation of the polarization plane depends merely on the applied electric filed [sic]… but not on the overall rotation of liquid crystal device”. However, this would appear to indicate that Applicant continues to misconstrue/mischaracterize the basic physics of liquid crystal materials. As was already noted for Applicant in the 4/7/2025 Non-Final Rejection (¶ 36) and 8/26/2025 Final Rejection (¶ 42), the relative orientation the liquid crystal will certainly have a pronounced effect on degree of polarization rotation – regardless of whether or not this effect is explicitly disclosed/exploited by Kuboi alone (this, again, being immaterial as the relevant rejections of claim 6, now cancelled, were based on combinations of references). Applicant’s apparent assumption that polarization rotation is orientation-independent completely lack scientific support, and it completely dismisses the basic liquid crystal optics laid out for Applicant in all the prior rejections – details of which one could certainly expect of an ordinary practitioner having some basic competency and exposure to relevant liquid crystal systems.
To close out the apparently counterfactual arguments noted in item C above, Applicant concludes that “It would not be obvious to modify the liquid crystal device of Kuboi …. because the purpose of Karasawa' s rotation is to rotate a polarizing lens” and that a “person of skill in the art would not expect to obtain the optical effects that result from rotating the polarizing lens of Karasawa when rotating the liquid crystal device of Kuboi” (Remarks, pg. 8).
Examiner will note, however, that he had never made any suggestion that one would expect precisely the same effect as in Karasawa – just that one of ordinary skill may appreciate Karasawa for disclosing adjusting means for light regulating elements with little contamination, and that they may attempt to adopt similar ideas in combination with those provided by Kuboi (and with those supplied by their own basic/practicing level of knowledge and creativity). Please refer again to the 4/7/2025 Non-Final Rejection (¶ 37) and 8/26/2025 Final Rejection (¶ 43) – from which Applicant has apparently mischaracterized Examiner’s position to attack a more convoluted strawman construction, rather than confront Examiner’s much simpler argument.
What remains of Applicant’s conclusions/arguments against obviousness thus appear to be mainly presumptive – overemphasizing basic differences between references and improperly limiting a practitioner’s thought-process to one of Applicant’s choosing. Applicant is reminded, however, that practitioners may retain their creative sensibilities and some standard level of scientific knowledge when considering the basic differences between related inventions. Indeed, practitioners are not required to incorporate every single detail disclosed in a set of references, nor are they limited thereto, and neither does Applicant have any authority to impose such constraints. In fact, given that much of Applicant’s earlier arguments appear to have rested largely on their mischaracterization/ misunderstanding of the bases of rejection and the liquid crystal physics relied upon, Examiner would find any attempt to exercise such authority over the ordinary practitioner to be largely misplaced. For these and other reasons given above, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments to be generally unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 8, the “and” in “and wherein” is premature and should be relocated immediately prior to the “wherein” on line 11, as this recites the final limitation listed in the claim. Furthermore, claims 3-5, 7-16 depend on and inherit the objection to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form. The claim improperly depends on the cancelled claim 6 and thus fails to further limit a claim previously set forth as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d). For examination purposes, claim 7 shall be read as dependent on claim 1, which was recently amended to include the subject matter of claim 6 prior to cancellation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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 was already explained to Applicant 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.
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”).
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 combine teachings of Kuboi and New Focus, in order to simplify and facilitate polarization adjustments, providing easier access to different active states and 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 (rather than claim 6, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above).
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.
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”).
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.)]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 below).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kuboi discloses the ophthalmic device of claim 1.
Kuboi further discloses wherein said adjustable filtering member (nematic liquid crystal material 63) is a half-wave plate that is flat or curved (see FIG. 7, where nematic liquid crystal material 63 is illustrated as having a flat, square-like shape with curved corners).
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
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