DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 13-15, the phrases “determining at least one evaluation function related to said visual equipment, as a function of at least optical performance of said visual equipment and postural performance of said wearer model in said model of said at least one environment” and “optimizing said at least one evaluation function, so as to determine said at least one optimized visual equipment” render the claims indefinite.
The phrase “determining at least one evaluation function related to said visual equipment, as a function of at least optical performance of said visual equipment and postural performance of said wearer model in said model of said at least one environment” merely states that an arbitrary function is to be determined, hence unknown. Such a function can be determined responding to subjective criteria and does not allow a skilled reader to discern not only how optical performance and postural performance are to be defined, measured, assessed or evaluated, but also how both are to be interrelated in the function. As demonstrated in the description, the form of the evaluation function is totally arbitrary and any imaginable parameter, weighting factor and operation is encompassed.
The phrase “optimizing said at least one evaluation function, so as to determine said at least one optimized visual equipment” is unclear because it is impossible to know not only how to optimize an unknown function but also to know whether a given outcome is indeed optimal. Further, it is not clear how the optimized evaluation function is linked to the determination of the visual equipment. This is so because the term "determination" itself encompasses multiple interpretations that may or may not be compatible with the result of the evaluation function.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based upon the reject base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the evaluation function is not arbitrary. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The phrase “determining at least one evaluation function related to said visual equipment, as a function of at least optical performance of said visual equipment and postural performance of said wearer model in said model of said at least one environment” merely states that an arbitrary function is to be determined, hence unknown. Such a function can be determined responding to subjective criteria and does not allow a skilled reader to discern not only how optical performance and postural performance are to be defined, measured, assessed or evaluated, but also how both are to be interrelated in the function. As demonstrated in the description, the form of the evaluation function is totally arbitrary and any imaginable parameter, weighting factor and operation is encompassed.
The phrase “optimizing said at least one evaluation function, so as to determine said at least one optimized visual equipment” is unclear because it is impossible to know not only how to optimize an unknown function but also to know whether a given outcome is indeed optimal. Further, it is not clear how the optimized evaluation function is linked to the determination of the visual equipment. This is so because the term "determination" itself encompasses multiple interpretations that may or may not be compatible with the result of the evaluation function.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/27/26
Prosecution Insights