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 claim amendments and response to the restriction/election requirement, mailed on 11/05/2025, have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-2, 6, 9, and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the argument of the election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9, 20) in the Remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, the arguments are persuasive. The applicant further amended independent claim 1 and 20 to include the components of the ophthalmic dispensing system, similar to what is recites in independent claim 10, thus the inventions are not distinct. The restriction/election requirement, mailed on 11/05/2025 of claims 1-20 are now withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for applying a drop of a therapeutic to an eye of a user using an ophthalmic dispensing system (device 10 delivers drop to eye 22 of user; Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026-0027) comprising an optical proximity sensor (detector 14; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026-0027), a blink detector (control electronics 16; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026), and an actuator (controlled fluid delivery element 12; Paragraph 0026; Figure 1), the method comprising:
measuring reflected light from the eye of the user at the optical proximity sensor to provide a time series of intensity values (detector 14 receive signal from reflected intensity values over time; Paragraph 0034 and 0037-0039; Figure 1);
determining, at the blink detector based on the time series of intensity values if the eye has blinked (detector 14 can detect eye-blink event; Paragraph 0034 and 0037-0039); and
releasing, at the actuator, the drop of the therapeutic in response to a determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery device 12 delivers medication based on determination of eye-blink from detector 14; Paragraph 0034-0035, 0047, 0053-0054; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein releasing the drop of the therapeutic in response to a determination that the eye has blinked, comprises releasing the drop of therapeutic in response to a second determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery element 12 can deliver fluid material in multiple eye-open blinking events, including a second eye-open event; Paragraph 0034-0035 and 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein measuring reflected light from the eye of the user comprises illuminating the eye of the user with light of a specific wavelength, and detecting the reflected light within a band of wavelengths including the specific wavelength (emitter 38 produces light of specific wavelength and reflected light is collected to analysis the wavelengths received by sensor 36; Paragraph 0043 and 0050-0052; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson further discloses wherein determining from the time series of intensity values if the eye has blinked comprises:
detecting a rising edge within the time series of intensity values (rising edge of intensity value data is start of event; Paragraph 0095-0096; Figure 6); and
detecting a falling edge within the time series of intensity values that follows the detected rising edge (falling edge of intensity value is the end of event; Paragraph 0095-0096; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses a system (device 10; Paragraph 0026; Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
an optical proximity sensor that measures reflected light from the eye of the user at a sensor to provide a time series of intensity values (detector 14 receive signal from reflected intensity values over time; Paragraph 0034 and 0037-0039; Figure 1);
a blink detector that determines if the eye has blinked from the time series of intensity values (control electronics 16 in conjunction with detector 14 determines eye-blink event based on data; Figure 1 and 6; Paragraph 0034-0035, 0039); and
an actuator that releases the drop of the therapeutic in response to a determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery device 12 delivers medication based on determination of eye-blink from detector 14 and control electronics 16; Paragraph 0034-0035, 0047, 0053-0054; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson further discloses further comprising:
a stimulus generator that generates an external stimulus to prompt the user to blink (emitter 38/stimulus generator produces multiple waveforms to cause stimulus and eye-blink event; Paragraph 0050;F Figure 1), the optical proximity sensor measuring reflected light from the eye of the user during presentation of the external stimulus to provide an invoked time series of intensity values associated with the blink (detector 14 has sensor device 36 that measures the reflected light during stimulus to measure intensity values; Paragraph 0050; Figure 1); and
generating at least one parameter for the blink detector from the invoked time series of intensity values (control electronics 16 analyzes data from sensor 36 of detector 14 to determine eye-blink event; Paragraph 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson discloses a method for applying a drop of a therapeutic to an eye of a user using an ophthalmic dispensing system (device 10 delivers drop to eye 22 of user; Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026-0027) comprising an optical proximity sensor (detector 14; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026-0027), a blink detector (control electronics 16; Figure 1; Paragraph 0026), and an actuator (controlled fluid delivery element 12; Paragraph 0026; Figure 1), the method comprising:
measuring reflected light from the eye of the user at an optical proximity sensor to provide a time series of intensity values (detector 14 receive signal from reflected intensity values over time; Paragraph 0034 and 0037-0039; Figure 1);
determining, at a processor based on the time series of intensity values (detector 14 can detect eye-blink event based on reflected light values; Paragraph 0034 and 0037-0039), if the eye has blinked by detecting a rising edge within the time series of intensity values detecting a falling edge within the time series of intensity values that follows the detected rising edge within a threshold time (rising and falling edge of intensity value is the start and end of eye-blink event over time; Paragraph 0095-0096; Figure 6); and
releasing, at an actuator, the drop of the therapeutic in response to a determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery device 12 delivers medication based on determination of eye-blink from detector 14; Paragraph 0034-0035, 0047, 0053-0054; Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Quintana et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0281768 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson does not teach wherein the actuator comprises a solenoid valve, and wherein releasing the drop of therapeutic comprises activating the solenoid valve in response to the determination that the eye has blinked.
However, Quintana teaches wherein the actuator comprises a solenoid valve (solenoid valve 410 is the electromagnetic actuator; Paragraph 0044; Figure 4).
Anderson and Quintana are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular fluid delivery devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Quintana to have the actuator of Anderson be the solenoid valve with cylinder of Quintana. This will allow for the fluid to be ejected out of the device and into the eye of the user based on electromagnetic force (Quintana; Paragraph 0044-0046).
The combination of Anderson in view of Quintana further teaches wherein releasing the drop of therapeutic comprises activating the solenoid valve in response to the determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery device of Anderson has the solenoid valve of Quintana which delivers the drop of therapeutic to the user based on the determination of control electronics 16 with detector 14 of Anderson that the eye-blink event occurs; Anderson; Figure 1 and 6; Paragraph 0034-0035 and 0039; Quintana; Paragraph 0044-0046; Figure 4).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Quintana et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0281768 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Davenport (Publication No. US 2009/0199855 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Quintana teaches the method of claim 2. The combination of Anderson in view of Quintana does not teach in which a current to activate the solenoid valve is prepared for actuation ahead of time by precharging a capacitor.
However, Davenport teaches in which a current to activate the solenoid valve is prepared for actuation ahead of time by precharging a capacitor (capacitor C10 stores charge to power solenoid valve –capacitor provides current and voltage to create power to the solenoid valve; Paragraph 0084).
Anderson in view of Quintana and Davenport are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid delivery devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Quintana to incorporate the teachings of Davenport to have the solenoid valve of Anderson in view of Quintana connected with the capacitor of Davenport in the device of Anderson in view of Quintana, with the method of the capacitor being precharged, as taught by Davenport, and supply current to the solenoid valve of Anderson in view of Quintana. This will allow for the solenoid valves to be provided with sufficient power for dispensing treatment (Davenport; Paragraph 0084).
The combination of Anderson in view of Quintana and Davenport further teaches in which a current to activate the solenoid valve is prepared for actuation ahead of time by precharging a capacitor before the determination that the eye has blinked such that actuation of the solenoid value is provided by a high speed discharge current with minimal actuation delays (capacitor of Davenport is connected to the solenoid valve in the device of Anderson in view of Quintana, where the capacitor of Davenport is precharged prior to the eye-blink event determination in the device of Anderson in view of Quintana and the capacitor of Davenport provides high-speed current to the solenoid valve of Anderson in view of Davenport; see combination above).
Claim(s) 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Johns et al. (Publication No. US 2011/0121976 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson does not teach detecting motion of the optical proximity sensor at an inertial measurement unit to provide a time series of acceleration values; and
determining if a determination that the eye has blinked was caused by motion of the optical proximity sensor from the time series of acceleration values.
However, Johns teaches detecting motion of the optical proximity sensor at an inertial measurement unit to provide a time series of acceleration values (accelerometer captures acceleration of head movement; Paragraph 0030; Figure 6A); and
determining if a determination that the eye has blinked was caused by motion of the optical proximity sensor from the time series of acceleration values (accelerometer and eye movements determine when the eye-blinks was caused by movement measured from accelerometer; Figures 6A-6B; Paragraph 0030-0033).
Anderson and Johns are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Johns to have the accelerometer of Johns in the system of Anderson, with the method of determining head movement based on acceleration to combine with eye movement data, as taught by John, on the optical proximity sensor and method of Anderson. This will allow for the detection of the user’s state by combining eye movement with head movement, such as alertness and attention (Johns; Paragraph 0048-0049 and 0058).
The combination of Anderson in view of Johns further teaches determination that the eye has blinked only if it is determined that the determination that the eye has blinked was not caused by motion of the optical proximity sensor from the time series of acceleration values (acceleration values from Johns can indicate states of user that can mediate signal from detector 14 of Anderson to generate suitable commands to the fluid dispenser 12, such as not delivering medication; Anderson; Paragraph 0034; see combination above).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach further comprising an inertial measurement unit that detects motion of the optical proximity sensor to provide a time series of acceleration values, the blink detector determining if the determination that the eye has blinked was caused by motion of the sensor from the time series of acceleration values.
However, Johns teaches further comprising an inertial measurement unit that detects motion of the optical proximity sensor to provide a time series of acceleration values (accelerometer captures acceleration of head movement; Paragraph 0030; Figure 6A).
Anderson and Johns are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular measurement devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Johns to have the accelerometer of Johns in the system of Anderson, with the blink detector of Anderson determining the eye-blink event in conjunction with the acceleration data of Johns. This will allow for the detection of the user’s state by combining eye movement with head movement, such as alertness and attention (Johns; Paragraph 0048-0049 and 0058).
The combination of Anderson in view of Johns further teaches the blink detector determining if the determination that the eye has blinked was caused by motion of the sensor from the time series of acceleration values (acceleration values from Johns can indicate states of user that can mediate signal from detector 14 through the control electronics 16 of Anderson to generate suitable commands to the fluid dispenser 12, such as not delivering medication; Anderson; Paragraph 0034; see combination above).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Khaderi et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0293356 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson does not teach wherein determining from the time series of intensity values if the eye has blinked comprises providing the time series of intensity values to a machine learning model.
However, Khaderi teaches wherein determining from the time series of intensity values if the eye has blinked comprises providing the time series of intensity values to a machine learning model (machine learning system can detect blinking from image data/intensity of reflected light/luminance; Paragraph 0417 and 0438).
Anderson and Khaderi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular analysis devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Khaderi to have the machine learning model of Khaderi in the blink detector of Anderson. This will allow for the algorithm to learn, model, and determine the eye blink event from the data that is fed to the algorithm (Khaderi; Paragraph 0417 and 0438).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the method of claim 16. Anderson does not teach wherein the blink detector comprises a machine learning model that determines if the eye has blinked from the time series of intensity values, and the at least one parameter represents a training sample comprising the invoked time series of intensity values.
However, Khaderi teaches wherein the blink detector comprises a machine learning model that determines if the eye has blinked from the time series of intensity values (Paragraph 0417 and 0438), and the at least one parameter represents a training sample comprising the invoked time series of intensity values (machine learning system can detect blinking from image data/intensity of reflected light/luminance; Paragraph 0417 and 0438).
Anderson and Khaderi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular analysis devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Khaderi to have the machine learning model of Khaderi in the blink detector of Anderson. This will allow for the algorithm to learn, model, and determine the eye blink event from the data that is fed to the algorithm (Khaderi; Paragraph 0417 and 0438).
Claim(s) 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Chen (Publication No. US 2022/0015627 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the method of claim 1. Anderson further teaches wherein releasing the drop of the therapeutic in response to the determination that the eye has blinked comprises releasing the drop of therapeutic in response to the determination that the eye has blinked (fluid delivery device 12 delivers medication based on determination of eye-blink from detector 14; Paragraph 0034-0035, 0047, 0053-0054; Figure 1). Anderson does not teach a determination that the optical proximity sensor is within a threshold distance of the eye.
However, Chen teaches a determination that the optical proximity sensor is within a threshold distance of the eye (change in distance is detected by proximity sensor 10 indicated eye blink event; Paragraph 0017-0018, 0020, and 0022; Figure 1).
Anderson and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the proximity sensor of Anderson to be able to measure the distance to determine the event of an eye blink, as taught by Chen. This will allow for the detection of the eye-blink be based on change in distance as well (Chen; Paragraph 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach wherein the optical proximity sensor comprises an infrared light emitting diode and a photosensor.
However, Chen teaches wherein the optical proximity sensor comprises an infrared light emitting diode and a photosensor (sensor 10 has an infrared light LED 101 and photosensor/infrared light receiving tube 102; Paragraph 0017; Figure 1).
Anderson and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the proximity sensor with the LED light of Anderson to be an infrared LED diode with a photosensor, as taught by Chen. This will allow for the sensor to detect the change of minimal distances of the sensor with the eye to detect eye blinking (Chen; Paragraph 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach wherein the blink detector further determines if the optical proximity sensor is within a threshold distance of the eye by determining if the reflected light has an intensity above a threshold intensity.
However, Chen teaches wherein the blink detector further determines if the optical proximity sensor is within a threshold distance of the eye by determining if the reflected light has an intensity above a threshold intensity (unit 501 determines the threshold distance of the eye to determine the eye-blinking event based on the intensity values compared with the threshold intensity, gathered by infrared proximity sensor 10; Paragraph 0016-0018).
Anderson and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the proximity sensor with the LED light of Anderson to be an infrared LED diode with a photosensor, as taught by Chen, where the sensor of Chen is connected to the blink detector of Anderson. This will allow for the sensor to detect the change of minimal distances of the sensor with the eye to detect eye blinking (Chen; Paragraph 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson in view of Chen teaches the system of claim 13. The combination of Anderson in view of Chen does not teach further comprising an ambient light sensor that measures a level of ambient light.
However, Chen teaches further comprising an ambient light sensor that measures a level of ambient light (light receiver 102 of sensor 10 measures ambient light intensity; Paragraph 0034).
Anderson and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the proximity sensor with the LED light of Anderson to have the infrared LED diode with a photosensor, as taught by Chen, where the sensor of Chen is connected to the blink detector of Anderson. This will allow for the sensor to detect the eye environment, such as indoor and outdoor, with the eye blink event (Chen; Paragraph 0034).
The combination of Anderson in view of Chen further teaches the blink detector adjusting the threshold intensity according to the measured level of ambient light (ambient light is noise that is removed to determine eye-blink event, controller determines the eye-blink event based on this equation; Anderson; Paragraph 0092-0095).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Chen (Publication No. US 2022/0015627 A1) and McKinney et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0275216 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach wherein the optical proximity sensor comprises an infrared time-of-flight vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser emitter and a photosensor.
However, Chen teaches an infrared LED emitter and a photosensor (sensor 10 has an infrared light LED 101 and photosensor/infrared light receiving tube 102; Paragraph 0017; Figure 1).
Anderson and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the proximity sensor with the LED light of Anderson to be an infrared LED diode with a photosensor, as taught by Chen. This will allow for the sensor to detect the change of minimal distances of the sensor with the eye to detect eye blinking (Chen; Paragraph 0016-0018).
Furthermore, McKinney teaches an infrared time-of-flight vertical-cavity surface emitting laser emitter to measure distance, as a type of infrared LED emitter (Paragraph 0044; Claim 20).
Since the prior art of McKinney recognizes the equivalency of utilizing an infrared time-of-flight vertical-cavity surface emitting laser emitter as an infrared LED in the field of proximity sensors, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the infrared LED of Chen to be the infrared time-of-flight vertical-cavity surface emitting laser emitter of McKinney since it is recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Frey et al. (Patent No. US 5,442,412 A).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach wherein the optical proximity sensor measures the reflected light at a rate of at least one hundred twenty hertz.
However, Frey teaches wherein the optical proximity sensor measures the reflected light at a rate of at least one hundred twenty hertz (sensor measures rate at 4 kHz; Column 4, lines 25-35).
Anderson and Frey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Frey to have the optical proximity sensor of Anderson measure the rate of reflected light at 4 kHz, as taught by Frey. This will allow for the sensor to measure data at speeds faster than eye movement (Frey; Column 4, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0204674 A1) in view of Wicks et al. (Publication No. WO 2021/090135 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses the system of claim 10. Anderson does not teach further comprising an alignment aid that assists the user in aligning the optical proximity sensor with the eye, the alignment aid comprising one of a magnifying mirror and a light that is positioned to be visible to the user and is responsive to a determination that the optical proximity sensor is aligned with the eye.
However, Wicks teaches further comprising an alignment aid that assists the user in aligning the optical proximity sensor with the eye (Paragraph 0071), the alignment aid comprising one of a magnifying mirror and a light that is positioned to be visible to the user and is responsive to a determination that the optical proximity sensor is aligned with the eye (Paragraph 0071).
Anderson and Wicks are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ocular devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Wicks to have the alignment aid of the mirror and light of Wicks in the system of Anderson. This will allow for the user to adjust the device to align with the eye conveniently (Wicks; Paragraph 0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781