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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,428,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “object recognition…shading or inverse shading, of a wearer’s view of the physical object” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,428,937.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,185,147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “providing one or more environmental sensors…in combination with the medical feature results” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,185,147.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,294,203. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “wherein shading or inverse shading…the brightness of the ambient environment” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,294,203.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,733,927. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “shading or inverse shading is utilized” and “an object is unshaded but the area outside of the object is shaded” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,733,927.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 16/194 ,276 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “the lens is disposed, when filtering selected light waves, to reduce a brightness of a region, the region being selected to surround an object being viewed by a user and excluding a selected portion of the object, to provide shading which follows the selected portion of the object in real time, the shading optimized by tracking the object and shading independently in at least one lens for each of a left and a right eye, the shading being disposed to reduce a brightness of the region to permit viewing of the selected portion of the object, the selected portion of the object including a display screen, whereby the object being viewed by the user is more prominent in the user’s field of view” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 16/194 ,276 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 4-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-21 of copending Application No. 16/194, 285 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “the dynamic eye tracking mechanism is utilized for object recognition where the object is within a view of the user, the device being disposed to operate to provide a shading/inverse-shading feature with respect to the object, the shading/inverse-shading feature operating to increase /decrease an amount of relative brightness of the object” renders claims 1 and 4-22 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-10 and 12-21 of copending Application No. 16/194, 285 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 4-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2012/0293548) in view of Soloman (US 10,593,092), and further in view of Bar Zeev et al. (US 2012/0068913).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses, a wearable optics device (Figs. 1A-C, 4 and 10) comprising:
a lens (150); and
a dynamic eye tracking mechanism (Para. 0034 and 0082) in communication with the lens; wherein the dynamic eye tracking mechanism utilizes optical parameter measurements; wherein the optical parameter measurements include any of ciliary measurements, pupil measurements, corneal measurements, eye lens measurements, iris measurements, eye lid measurements, retina measurements, wherein the parameters include medical features, wherein the medical features comprises anatomical features of a patient (Para. 0027, 0038 and 616 of Fig. 6) including one or more changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera or lens (Para. 0082).
Perez does not disclose the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device.
Soloman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device that it would have been desirable to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4) in response to the parameters (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4; note, the Examiner interprets the parameters to be based on the disclosed eye-tracking and eye acuity), the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the wearable optics device of Perez since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Perez in view of Soloman does not explicitly disclose the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters.
Bar Zeev teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device (Figs. 4A-D and 7A-B) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control (100) operating in response to signals (Para. 0002-0004; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter) from an eye sensor camera (726) directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens (Para. 0002-0004 and 0048; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera (that uses a pupil of an eye) to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter), the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading (Para. 0077; note, discloses shading/inverse shading to different grey levels, or to different color levels), and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters (Para. 0002-0004 and 0077; note, discloses using an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters as taught by the wearable optics device of Bar Zeev in the combination of Perez in view of Soloman since Bar Zeev teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a wearable optics device that effectively provides shading/inverse shading for glare control with low power consumption.
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 20, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, the wearable optics device is utilized with any of a visor, helmet, facemask, safety goggles (102 of Figs. 1-2 and 202 of Figs. 3A-B and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Perez discloses, Perez discloses, a wearable optics device (Figs. 1A-C, 4 and 10) comprising:
a lens (150); and
a dynamic eye tracking mechanism (Para. 0034 and 0082) in communication with the lens; wherein the dynamic eye tracking mechanism utilizes optical parameter measurements; wherein the optical parameter measurements include any of ciliary measurements, pupil measurements, corneal measurements, eye lens measurements, iris measurements, eye lid measurements, retina measurements, wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of Fig. 6); wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of 6); wherein the parameters are athletic information related to the user (Para. 0027, 0038 and 616 of Fig. 6).
Perez does not disclose the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device.
Soloman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device that it would have been desirable to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4) in response to the parameters (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4; note, the Examiner interprets the parameters to be based on the disclosed eye-tracking and eye acuity), the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the wearable optics device of Perez since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Perez in view of Soloman does not explicitly disclose the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters.
Bar Zeev teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device (Figs. 4A-D and 7A-B) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control (100) operating in response to signals (Para. 0002-0004; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter) from an eye sensor camera (726) directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens (Para. 0002-0004 and 0048; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera (that uses a pupil of an eye) to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter), the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading (Para. 0077; note, discloses shading/inverse shading to different grey levels, or to different color levels), and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters (Para. 0002-0004 and 0077; note, discloses using an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters as taught by the wearable optics device of Bar Zeev in the combination of Perez in view of Soloman since Bar Zeev teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a wearable optics device that effectively provides shading/inverse shading for glare control with low power consumption.
Regarding claims 5 and 15-16, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, the athletic information can be related to any of track, skiing, baseball, football, tennis, basketball, and golf (Para. 0001 and 0026).
Regarding claim 6, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, in football an intended target is highlighted (Para. 0001).
Regarding claim 7, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, augmented reality is provided remotely, wherein augmented reality is provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0096).
Regarding claim 8, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, a particular characteristic of a user is highlighted (Para. 0029-0033).
Regarding claim 9, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, an identification of geometry of a field is provided (Para. 0029-0033).
Regarding claim 10, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, possession of the football is identified (Para. 0001).
Regarding claim 13, Perez discloses, a wearable optics device (Figs. 1A-C, 4 and 10) comprising:
a lens (150); and
a dynamic eye tracking mechanism (Para. 0034 and 0082) in communication with the lens; wherein the dynamic eye tracking mechanism utilizes optical parameter measurements; wherein the optical parameter measurements include any of ciliary measurements, pupil measurements, corneal measurements, eye lens measurements, iris measurements, eye lid measurements, retina measurements, wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of Fig. 6); wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of 6); wherein the user is an athletic sports player (Para. 0001-0004 and 0027).
Perez does not disclose the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device.
Soloman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device that it would have been desirable to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4) in response to the parameters (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4; note, the Examiner interprets the parameters to be based on the disclosed eye-tracking and eye acuity), the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the wearable optics device of Perez since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Perez in view of Soloman does not explicitly disclose the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters.
Bar Zeev teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device (Figs. 4A-D and 7A-B) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control (100) operating in response to signals (Para. 0002-0004; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter) from an eye sensor camera (726) directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens (Para. 0002-0004 and 0048; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera (that uses a pupil of an eye) to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter), the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading (Para. 0077; note, discloses shading/inverse shading to different grey levels, or to different color levels), and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters (Para. 0002-0004 and 0077; note, discloses using an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters as taught by the wearable optics device of Bar Zeev in the combination of Perez in view of Soloman since Bar Zeev teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a wearable optics device that effectively provides shading/inverse shading for glare control with low power consumption.
Regarding claim 14, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, coach communications, trainer communication, other player communications are connected to the player (Para. 0069-0070 and 0095).
Regarding claim 18, Perez discloses, a wearable optics device (Figs. 1A-C, 4 and 10) comprising:
a lens (150); and
a dynamic eye tracking mechanism (Para. 0034 and 0082) in communication with the lens; wherein the dynamic eye tracking mechanism utilizes optical parameter measurements; wherein the optical parameter measurements include any of ciliary measurements, pupil measurements, corneal measurements, eye lens measurements, iris measurements, eye lid measurements, retina measurements, wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of Fig. 6); wherein parameters personalized to a user are provided based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of 6); wherein the user is military personnel (Para. 0001-0004 and 0027).
Perez does not disclose the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device.
Soloman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device that it would have been desirable to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4) in response to the parameters (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4; note, the Examiner interprets the parameters to be based on the disclosed eye-tracking and eye acuity), the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearable optics device performs shading or inverse-shading on the lens in response to the parameters, the shading or inverse-shading being responsive to an occlusion effect projected on the lens using a projector within the wearable optics device as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the wearable optics device of Perez since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Perez in view of Soloman does not explicitly disclose the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters.
Bar Zeev teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device (Figs. 4A-D and 7A-B) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control (100) operating in response to signals (Para. 0002-0004; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter) from an eye sensor camera (726) directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens (Para. 0002-0004 and 0048; note, discloses using signals from an eye tracking camera (that uses a pupil of an eye) to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter), the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading (Para. 0077; note, discloses shading/inverse shading to different grey levels, or to different color levels), and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters (Para. 0002-0004 and 0077; note, discloses using an eye tracking camera to adjust the amount of glare/light transmitted thru the opacity filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shading/inverse-shading feature including a display control operating in response to signals from an eye sensor camera directed at and responsive to changes in the user’s iris, pupil, retina, sclera, or lens, the amount of shading/inverse shading at each point being intermediate between complete shading and complete lack of shading, and the display control adjusting an amount of shading/inverse shading responsive to an amount of glare determined in response to the parameters as taught by the wearable optics device of Bar Zeev in the combination of Perez in view of Soloman since Bar Zeev teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a wearable optics device that effectively provides shading/inverse shading for glare control with low power consumption.
Regarding claim 19, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Perez further discloses, the military personnel utilizes augmented reality based upon the dynamic eye tracking (Para. 0038 and 616 of 6).
Regarding claim 21, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Soloman further teaches, the occlusion effect is responsive to an image of an object identified by the wearable optics device within a field of view, the occlusion effect surrounding the identified image (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the occlusion effect is responsive to an image of an object identified by the wearable optics device within a field of view, the occlusion effect surrounding the identified image as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the combination of Perez in view of Bar Zeev since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Regarding claim 22, Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Soloman further teaches, the shading or inverse-shading is responsive to a brightness of an ambient environment (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4) with respect to an image identified by the wearable optics device, the shading or inverse-shading providing an enhanced view of the identified image (Col. 11, lines 51-67 and Col. 12, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the occlusion effect is responsive to an image of an object identified by the wearable optics device within a field of view, the occlusion effect surrounding the identified image as taught by the wearable optics device of Soloman in the combination of Perez in view of Bar Zeev since Soloman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a low cost wearable optics device with enhanced resolution and contrast and reduced aberrations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 2012/0293548) in view of Soloman (US 10,593,092) in view of Bar Zeev et al. (US 2012/0068913) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Osterhaut et al. (US 2012/0206334).
Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev remains as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev does not disclose a skier utilizing the wearable optics device has access to skiing information; which includes any of or any combination of speed and location of other skiers, altitude, and topographic features of the terrain
Osterhaut teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable optics device that it would have been desirable to make a skier utilizing the wearable optics device has access to skiing information; which includes any of or any combination of speed and location of other skiers, altitude, and topographic features of the terrain (Para. 0238).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable optics device of Osterhaut in the combination of Perez, Soloman and Bar Zeev since Osterhaut teaches it is known to include this feature in a wearable optics device for the purpose of providing a wearable optics an efficient wearable optics device that effectively displays important information to a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/21/2025