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
The amendments filed 09/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 7-8, 10-18, and 21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7-8, 10-18, and 21 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.
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, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletcher (US 2014/0098226, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Pletcher discloses a pair of electronic contact lenses (see Fig 2C), comprising: a left electronic contact lens to be worn on a left eye of a user (see Fig 2C; Para [0022]; a left contact lens 110B), and a right electronic contact lens to be worn on a right eye of the user (see Fig 2C; Para [0022]; a right contact lens 110A); wherein each of the left and right electronic contact lenses is characterized by a respective gaze axis of the lens (see Fig 2B; Para [0021]; the contact lenses have a vertical/Y axis oriented perpendicularly to the gaze/Z axis); and wherein each of the left and right electronic contact lenses contains a respective electronic payload comprising one or integrated circuit chips mounted on a substrate with traces connecting to the integrated circuit chips (see Fig 2C; Para [0022]; left and right contact lenses contain electronic components 210A-F, 215, and 290 that may be interpreted as circuit chips with traces as seen in Fig 2C),
Pletcher does not disclose wherein a layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is rotated 180 degrees around the gaze axis relative to a layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens, and the layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is not a mirror image of the layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens. Optimizing a lens pair symmetry, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 Il (A). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result- effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ho (US 9,063,351, of record) teaches, in Col 19, lines 1-34, having opposing symmetry on a left and right electronic contact lens that would allow for improved lens communication.
Therefore, the prior art teaches a layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is rotated 180 degrees around the gaze axis relative to a layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens, and the layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is not a mirror image of the layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Pletcher with wherein a layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is rotated 180 degrees around the gaze axis relative to a layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens, and the layout of the electronic payload for the left electronic contact lens is not a mirror image of the layout of the electronic payload for the right electronic contact lens since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1 (see Fig 2C), wherein the layout of the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads comprises a plurality of a first type of integrated circuit chip distributed on both sides of a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses (see Fig 2C; Para [0022]; a first type of component, image capture components 210A-F, are arranged on a top and bottom half of the lens determined by an axis that crosses perpendicularly to the center of the Y-axis of the lens previously mentioned).
Regarding claim 11, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1 (see Fig 2C), wherein the electronic payload of each of the left and right electronic contact lenses covers a larger area towards a center the respective lens on a nasal side of the lens in comparison to a temporal side of the lens (see Fig 2C; Para [0022]; electronic payload of each contact lens covers a larger area towards a nasal/inner side of the contact lens since elements 215 and 290 sit on said side as opposed to a temporal/outer side that carries only elements 210B and 210E).
Regarding claim 14, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1 (see Fig 2C), wherein each of the left and right electronic contact lenses further comprises a respective lens component, wherein the electronic payload of the each of left and right electronic contact lenses is mounted on or encapsulated within the respective lens component (see Fig 2A; Para [0020]; contact lenses comprise electronic components disposed on or within its substrate).
Regarding claim 15, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 14 (see Fig 2C), wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses each have an posterior surface that contacts the respective left and right eye of the user when the pair of electronic contact lenses is worn by the user (see Fig 1B; Para [0019]; respective lens units 110 each have posterior/back surfaces that contact the respective eye of the user as seen in Fig 1B).
Claims 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletcher (US 2014/0098226, of record) in view of Wiemer (US 10,409,068, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1. Pletcher does not disclose wherein the electronic payloads of the left and right contact lenses each further includes a femtoprojector. Pletcher and Wiemer are related because both disclose electronic contact lenses.
Wiemer discloses an electronic contact lens (see Fig 3) wherein the plurality of electronic components of the electronic payloads of the left and right contact lenses includes a femtoprojector (see Fig 3; Col 4, lines 49-54; left and right contact lenses contain femtoprojectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein the plurality of electronic components of the electronic payloads of the left and right contact lenses includes a femtoprojector of Wiemer for the purpose of reducing the required data transferred and space required for electronics within the lens (Col 2, lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 16, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 15. Pletcher does not disclose where the posterior surfaces of the respective lens components are each shaped based on an outer surface of a respective eye of the user. Pletcher and Wiemer are related because both disclose electronic contact lenses.
Wiemer discloses an electronic contact lens (see Fig 3) where the posterior surfaces of the respective lens components are each shaped based on an outer surface of a respective eye of the user (see Fig 3; Col 6, lines 21-32; lenses may be customed fit to the scleral of the user on both left and right eyes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with where the posterior surfaces of the respective lens components are each shaped based on an outer surface of a respective eye of the user of Wiemer for the purpose of reducing the required data transferred and space required for electronics within the lens (Col 2, lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 17, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 14. Pletcher does not disclose wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses do not match when rotated by a specified angle relative to the vertical axis. Pletcher and Wiemer are related because both disclose electronic contact lenses.
Wiemer discloses an electronic contact lens (see Fig 3) wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses do not match when rotated by a specified angle relative to the vertical axis (see Fig 4A; Col 5, 34-45; when rotated around a vertical axis 409L and 409R components do not match).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses do not match when rotated by a specified angle relative to the vertical axis of Wiemer for the purpose of reducing the required data transferred and space required for electronics within the lens (Col 2, lines 41-58).
Claims 7-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletcher (US 2014/0098226, of record) in view of Jow (US 2019/0094570, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1. Pletcher does not disclose wherein a weight distribution of the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses. Pletcher and Jow are related because both disclose contact lenses with payloads.
Jow discloses a contact lens with payload (see Fig 4A) wherein a weight distribution of the plurality of the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses (see Fig 4A; Para [0042-0043]; weight distribution is even with respect to elements 325 and 320 that are on either sides of a horizontal axis that passes through the middle of the lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein a weight distribution of the plurality of the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses of Jow for the purpose of fixing lens position while mounted on the user’s eye (Para [0043])
Regarding claim 8, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1. Pletcher does not disclose wherein an area covered by the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses. Pletcher and Jow are related because both disclose contact lenses with payloads.
Jow discloses a contact lens with payload (see Fig 4A) wherein an area covered by the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses (see Fig 4A; Para [0042-0043]; area is evenly balance with respect to elements 325 and 320 that are on either sides of a horizontal axis that passes through the middle of the lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein an area covered by the one or more integrated circuit chips of each of the respective electronic payloads is balanced across a horizontal axis of the respective electronic contact lenses of Jow for the purpose of fixing lens position while mounted on the user’s eye (Para [0043])
Regarding claim 18, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 14. Pletcher does not disclose wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses provide optical refractive correction. Pletcher and Jow are related because both disclose contact lenses with payloads.
Jow discloses a contact lens with payload (see Fig 4A) wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses provide optical refractive correction (see Fig 4A; Para [0020]; optical lens enclosure 110 may be shaped to provide a predetermine optical power to correct a patient’s vision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein the respective lens components of the left and right electronic contact lenses provide optical refractive correction of Jow for the purpose of enhancing a user’s experience through proper fitting of the device for a patient’s eye (Para [0020])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletcher (US 2014/0098226, of record) in view of Ice (US 2021/0063773, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1. Pletcher does not disclose wherein the one or more integrated circuit chips of the electronic payloads of the left and right electronic contact lenses includes an electronic component where a tilt corresponding to an angle of the electronic component relative to a gaze axis of the left or right electronic contact lens is adjustable. Pletcher and Ice are related because both disclose contact lenses with payloads.
Ice discloses a contact lens with payload (see Fig 4A) wherein the one or more integrated circuit chips of the electronic payloads of the left and right electronic contact lenses includes an electronic component where a tilt corresponding to an angle of the electronic component relative to a gaze axis of the left or right electronic contact lens is adjustable (see Fig 4A; Para [0050]; tilt angles of the facets, which carry the electrical components may be adjusted to accommodate different electrical components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein the one or more integrated circuit chips of the electronic payloads of the left and right electronic contact lenses includes an electronic component where a tilt corresponding to an angle of the electronic component relative to a gaze axis of the left or right electronic contact lens is adjustable of Ice for the purpose of meeting the design requirements of the electrical lens while maintaining proper lens shape and function (Para [0050-0052])
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletcher (US 2014/0098226, of record) in view of Kubota (US 2022/0257972).
Regarding claim 21, Pletcher discloses the pair of electronic contact lenses of claim 1. Pletcher does not disclose wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board. Pletcher and Kubota are related because both disclose contact lenses with payloads.
Kubota discloses a contact lens with payload (see Fig 2B) wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board (see Fig 2B; Para [0132]; a contact lens 10 may have a PCB 24 wherein integrated circuits lie).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pletcher with wherein the substrate is a printed circuit board of Kubota for the purpose of properly mounting electrical element while allowing for flexing (Para [0132])
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 GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872