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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 11/14/2025. Claims 1 and 10 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “capturing a live video feed of the user using a camera of the portable device; displaying an AR model of the selected glasses frame on the user as shown in the live video feed captured by the camera of the portable device”. The limitation "the user as shown in the live video feed captured by the camera of the portable device" does not have clear antecedent basis in the claim as the user captured by the camera of the portable device is not “shown” but rather captured. It is unclear whether the claim requires capturing a live video feed (including a user) and displaying the live video feed (including the user) or if the claim merely requires displaying any AR model (still image, video images, or otherwise) having a same user as was captured in the live video feed capturing step. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the interpretation of the language will include capture of video and display of any form of AR image.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the broad claim interpretation given to the claims regarding the capture of video and display of an AR model as claimed. In the 11/14/2025 Remarks, Applicant argues “Yoshida teaches away from the current invention by requiring that front and side facing images of the user be captured as part of the user registration process”, “frame is then displayed on the previously captured and submitted face image of the user”, and “”Yoshida require that static face images be captured prior to frame selection … [and] does not disclose an augmented live video feed from a camera”. Applicant’s contention implies that the interpretation of the claim is limited to augmented live video feeds, in contrast to Examiner’s contention above.
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, 6-7, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2001/0042028 to Yoshida (hereinafter Yoshida) in view of US PG Pat. 11,363,946 to Raviv et al. (hereinafter Raviv) or in the alternative, unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Raviv and US Pat. 9,304,332 to Fonte et al. (hereinafter Fonte).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Yoshida discloses a method, executed by one or more processors (Figs. 1, 11, 22), of providing prescription glasses to a user according to their vision prescription, the method comprising: performing an eye test using a display device to determine the user's vision prescription (Figs. 2, 7, & 11, [0104]-[0132],[0207]); displaying a selection of glasses frames (“image processor 2007 of the electronic service center 2002 is adapted to output an eyeglass wearing image in which an eyeglass frame image selected by the above-mentioned frame selection unit 2008 is combined with a face image data controlled by the database controller 2005”; [0207]-[0292]) on a portable device ([0235]); receiving user selection of a glasses frame using the portable device (“When a product to be purchased (such as an eyeglass lens or a frame) is selected via the user interface unit 1, the eyeglass ordering and marketing processor 23 receives a user ID and a product ID to be purchased from the display information creating unit 22”; [0058]); capturing a live video feed of the user using a camera of the portable device (“a digital camera 11a is preferably provided as an image information input device… video cameras, or digital still camera may be used so long as it allows image information to be digitized for input”; [0049]); displaying an AR model of the selected glasses frame on the user as shown in the live video feed captured by the camera of the portable device (“virtual eyeglass wearing system allows various types of eyeglass frames to be put on the image of user's face”, Fig. 22; [0049],[0207]-[0292]); receiving final selection of a glasses frame ([0287]-[0290]); and transmitting the user's vision prescription and an identifier of the finally selected glasses frame to at least one vendor of optical prescription services (Figs. 1, 2, 7, 11, 22).
It is acknowledged that Yoshida provides granularity in the augmented reality method involving a “front view” or “front image” ([0278]) and “side views” or “side images” ([0276]-[0277]) and corresponding measurements for right-sizing the to-be-displayed frame. Further Yoshida discloses combining a face-fitting frame with “the face image of the user” ([0287]). These teachings are not at odds with a video capture and still image display and are not at odds with a video capture and a video image display. Yoshida explicitly discloses the face image may be captured by a video camera for subsequent digitization and the disclosure consistently uses the idea of a face image for subsequent augmented reality displaying. For this reason, it is held that Yoshida teaches these limitations (i.e. capturing and displaying) of the claimed invention. It is understood from Applicant’s 11/14/2025 Remarks that there is an alternative interpretation of the claim language as requiring the display of an augmented reality video. Yoshida is not clear about displaying a live video of the user for the purposes of augmented reality.
Fonte discloses “computer system camera captures image data consisting of one or more images, videos, or live previews of the user, and the computer system display shows the image data through its display” and “an augmented reality approach is used. A live video feed of the user's face is shown using a computer system configured with a video camera. The quantitative anatomic model tracks with the user's face in real time, allowing the 3D eyewear model to be displayed and superimposed on the user's face in real time as the user moves his face in front of the computer system. This would create the illusion of looking in a mirror while trying on the glasses, as one would in a retail store” (col. 42, ln. 42-col. 43, ln. 10).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to live video capture and display as taught by Fonte with the system as disclosed by Yoshida. The motivation would have been to simulate trying on glasses “as one would in a retail store” (col. 42, ln. 42-col. 43, ln. 10).
Yoshida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose performing an eye test using a display device of a head-worn device.
Raviv discloses performing an eye test using a display device of a head-worn device (Figs. 1, 6, 7; Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide head-mounted eye testing as taught by Raviv with the system as disclosed by Yoshida. The motivation would have been to stabilize the examined eyes relative to the optical elements (col. 4, ln. 66-col. 5, ln. 7) and perform examinations from convenient locations (col. 16, ll. 17-50).
Regarding clams 6 and 12, Yoshida discloses; transmitting data relating to the eye test being performed using the display device of a device to the remote device (Figs. 2, 3, 7, 11)
Yoshida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose creating a joint communication session with a remote device associated with an eye-care practitioner.
Raviv discloses creating a joint communication session with a remote device associated with an eye-care practitioner (“send the eyeglass prescription to a remote location where an authorized person can verify and approve the prescription, such as an optometrist or a medical doctor”; col. 16, ll. 17-29), and receiving approval data for the user's vision prescription from the remote device (col. 16, ll. 17-29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to remote eye testing approval as taught by Raviv with the system as disclosed by Yoshida. The motivation would have been to perform examinations from convenient locations (col. 16, ll. 17-50).
Regarding clams 7 and 13, Yoshida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose transmitting summary data, generated during the performance of the eye test using the display device of a head-worn device eye test, to a remote device associated with an eye-care practitioner; and receiving approval data for the user's vision prescription from the remote device
Raviv discloses transmitting summary data, generated during the performance of the eye test using the display device of a head-worn device eye test, to a remote device associated with an eye-care practitioner; and receiving approval data for the user's vision prescription from the remote device (“send the eyeglass prescription to a remote location where an authorized person can verify and approve the prescription, such as an optometrist or a medical doctor”; col. 16, ll. 17-29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to remote eye testing approval as taught by Raviv with the system as disclosed by Yoshida. The motivation would have been to perform examinations from convenient locations (col. 16, ll. 17-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are addressed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112 and Claim Interpretation sections.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited referenced generally relate to capturing and providing real-time video of users for eyeglass frame previewing.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872