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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/435,732 filed on February 7, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The current action is in response to the submission of April 16, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. No amendments to the claims have been made, such that all claims are as originally filed.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In lines 3-6 of page 6 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the rejections of independent claims 1 and 7 are “legally unsound”. This portion is merely introductory and the arguments that underly this conclusion follow and will be addressed below. However, as a preliminary matter, it is worth noting that the remarks are sprinkled with statements of opinion, primarily substantiated by pejorative adjectives. Such antagonistic framing is not conducive to the joint purpose of collaboratively arriving at allowable claims which are commensurate with the applicant’s contribution to the art. Nonetheless, the examiner has diligently endeavored to consider each and every argument raised.
In the first paragraph under heading A, the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that Gourrand’s delay module does not teach and is not equivalent to the claimed “automatic delay drive circuit”. This paragraph presents many opinions, but no actual addressable arguments. Of note however, is the applicant’s characterization of the rejection as “the core of the Office’s rejection is the incorrect assertion that Gourraud’s “delay module” teaches the claimed “automatic delay drive circuit”. Given that this characterization underlies all of the arguments that follow, it is worth noting that this premise is false. The core of the rejection is that Li teaches absolutely every aspect of the claimed dimmable device other than that the dimming device has a delay functionality, and that the automatic drive circuit has a delay functionality that uses a signal representing the sensed light intensity to determine an electrical signal to the controller that controls the dimmable device. Contrary to the entirety of the applicant’s arguments, it is first and foremost the teachings of Li that render the current claims unpatentable. To put it another way, the core of the rejection is not what is taught by Gourrand, but exactly how little is missing from Li.
Under the heading “the claimed automatic delay drive circuit” on pages 6 and 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant explains some of the workings of the present invention and their purpose. In particular, the applicant presents three core, interrelated functions:
“1. It receives the light intensity signal sensed by the photoreceptor in the solar power system, converts this analog light intensity signal into a processed electrical signal, and transmits the signal to the controller's AD port;”
The reflection of this functionality in the language of claim 1 is “wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device and senses light intensity of ambient light, said first power supply system transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic… drive circuit, said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller, and said controller determines whether delayed dimming is performed based on the electrical signal.” As duly noted in the rejection, maintained below, the core of these functions is taught by the primary reference Li as follows:
wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (paragraph [0060]: "The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit") and senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0059]: "optical sensor 302 to sense the ambient light intensity"), said first power supply system transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0059]: "The driver circuit can receive the ambient light intensity information") …and said controller determines whether dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0058]: "The driver circuit can output an AC voltage across liquid crystal layer 204 to generate the electric field With such arrangements, the light transmittance of one or more lens assemblies 104 can be configured based on the ambient light intensity." and paragraph [0067]: "The microcontroller of the driver circuit can output different voltages to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.")."
Only the extremely minor detail of “said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller” relies on the secondary reference Gourrand, specifically Fig. 15 paragraph [0210]: "set the functionality parameter(s) (step 67),".
The second function presented is:
2. It enables seamless, automatic switching between the solar power supply and the backup battery power supply, ensuring uninterrupted power to the controller and dimming device when ambient light is suddenly lost (e.g., when entering a tunnel or shaded area);
This functionality is not present in claims 1 and 7, and thus is not pertinent to the patentability of claims 1 or 7. However, a portion of it is reflected in claims 2 and 8 as follows:
2. further comprising: a second power supply system, wherein said second power supply system is internally equipped with a backup battery, said second power supply system is connected to said automatic delay drive circuit…
That these features are obvious in light of the prior art is duly explained in the rejections of claim 2 and 8 which enlist the teachings of Gunz, Chettiar and Billerbeck. These additional references and their teachings are not addressed in the present remarks. To put it another way, that Li and Gourrand fail to disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 8 is not a point of disagreement.
The remaining aspects of feature 2 “seamless, automatic switching between the solar power supply and the backup battery power supply, ensuring uninterrupted power to the controller and dimming device when ambient light is suddenly lost (e.g., when entering a tunnel or shaded area).” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, it is worth noting that the functionality to provide uninterrupted power by appropriately switching from solar power to batter power is both well-known and ubiquitous in the art of solar powered devices. Such references were not cited previously since there was no claim language directed to this feature. Instead, specific details of the circuit were recited in claim 5, from which the examiner deduced that the applicant was well aware of the commonplace nature of this feature. However, an example thereof would be Nielsen et al. US 2008/0061628 A1 (paragraph [0014]).
The third function presented is:
3. It implements the core inventive delayed dimming functionality: when solar power is abruptly lost, the circuit works with the controller to gradually adjust the output voltage to the liquid crystal film, achieving slow, delayed brightening of the lens to eliminate the instantaneous brightness jump that causes eye discomfort and safety risks.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., function 3) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the instant invention enables slow, delayed brightening of the lens to eliminate the instantaneous brightness jump that causes eye discomfort and safety risks, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the first paragraph of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges “The claimed circuit is specifically designed to solve a long-felt but unmet need in solar- powered dimming eyewear: the sudden, uncontrolled brightness change of the liquid crystal film when the solar power system loses power instantaneously in low-light environments.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Firstly, counsel's assertion that there is such a long-felt need is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c). That long-felt need arguments require evidence and the criteria under which such evidence could be persuasive are explained in MPEP §716.04. Needless to say, a mere assertion by the applicant’s counsel is not sufficient to meet these criteria.
Secondly, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Gourrand fails to avoid sudden, uncontrolled brightness changes. Quite to the contrary, Gourrand teaches (paragraph [0153]): “The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation.” (emphasis added).
In the second paragraph of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges “In stark contrast, Gourraud's "delay module 16" is a software/firmware module disposed downstream of the actuation data generation module 15 and upstream of the output module 17 (Gourraud, paragraph [0153], FIG. 2). Its sole, narrow function is to delay the transmission of already fully generated actuation data (driving commands) to the output module. The only purpose of this module is to "avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation" of the eyewear after the wearer's environment type is determined via distance sensors (Gourraud, paragraph [0153]).” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First, the automatic delay drive circuit of the instant application is also software/firmware that is upstream of the controller. Second, the function of the automatic delay drive circuit of the instant application is also to provide a delay in the change of state of the dimmable device. Third, avoiding too prompt of instable changes in operation is the same purpose of the instant delay circuit. When Gourrand’s latency delays the brightening of the dimmable device, it will necessarily also avoid a sudden change in the dimming state when the wearer enters a low-light environment. Fourth, the applicant’s allegation that Gourrand only makes determinations about the actuation state based on distance sensors is not supported by the cited paragraph. Some of the places where Gourrand discusses sensing the ambient light intensity and controls the device based on the light environment were duly noted in the rejection, e.g. paragraph [0140]: "controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses upon detection of variations in the light environment of the wearer" and paragraph [0131]: "the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,". That the applicant is choosing to ignore these teachings cannot be the basis for a persuasive argument.
In the third paragraph of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points to three features, that the applicant alleges are missing from Gourrand. Firstly, “1. It does not receive, process, or convert any light intensity signal from a solar power system.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, as noted in the rejection and as pointed out above, Gourrand does teach sensing the light intensity of ambient light (paragraph [0131]: "the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,"). That this detection is by the solar power system does not need to be taught by Gourrand, because it was already taught in the primary reference Li: “wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (paragraph [0060]: "The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit") and senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0059]: "optical sensor 302 to sense the ambient light intensity").” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly, in this paragraph the applicant alleges that Gourrand fails in that “2. It has no role in power supply switching between solar power and a backup battery, and Gourraud's disclosure is entirely silent on solar-powered dimming systems.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Switching between solar and battery power supply is not claimed in claims 1 or 7. To the extent that this feature is present in the claims, the most closely related limitations are in claims 2 and 8, for which additional references are provided. Thus, again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present instance, the examiner can see no reason why Gourrand would have to teach feature 2, given that it is not present in claims 1 or 7.
Thirdly, in this paragraph the applicant alleges that Gourrand fails in that “3. It does not address, or even recognize, the technical problem of sudden lens brightness changes caused by abrupt loss of solar power.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., switching to battery power upon entering a darkened space to maintain and gradually reduce the current dimmed state) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lastly in this paragraph the applicant argues “The Office's equating of these two distinct elements is based on a superficial, label-only analysis of the term "delay," without regard to the actual structure, function, and purpose of the claimed invention. This misconstruction is fatal to the Office's rejection.” This is a statement of opinion decorated with adjectives, not an argument. As explained above, a delay in the changing of state of the dimmable device is a delay. In both Gourrand and the instant application, a latency is produced such that the time at which the dimmable device changes state would be delayed (if moving into a darkened area) or avoided if the environmental darkening is brief. To the extent that the “actual structure, function and purpose” of the invention are reflected in the claims, the manner in which the prior art renders them obvious has been duly noted. Furthermore, most of the applicant’s arguments cannot be the basis of a persuasive argument because they are not commensurate with the claims.
In the last paragraph of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that the Office has not shown any valid motivation to combine Li and Gourrand. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Li and Gourrand was duly provided, namely: “for the purpose of avoiding too prompt or instable changes in the operation of the variable transmittance smart eyewear as taught by Gourrand paragraph [0153].”
In the first two paragraphs of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “Li does not recognize, address, or even mention the core technical problem solved by the present invention: the instantaneous brightness jump of the liquid crystal film when the solar power system suddenly loses power. Li's disclosure is completely silent on this problem, and provides no teaching or suggestion of any delay mechanism to address it.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, the delay functionality missing from Li is taught by Gourrand. Further, there is no requirement under the standards of obviousness that the motivation for the proposed modification must come from the primary reference and the applicant has not provided any citations to where they might have gotten the idea that this was necessary for a prima facie case of obviousness.
In the third paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first argues “Gourraud's disclosure is directed to an entirely unrelated technical field: using distance sensors to identify a wearer's environment type (indoor, outdoor, vehicle) and adjust eyewear functionality based on that environment classification.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's argument that Gourrand is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the instant application and Gourrand are directed to variable transmittance eyewear, see e.g. paragraph [0064]. Furthermore, contrary to the applicant’s assertion, Gourrand does, in fact, disclose light measurement capacities (e.g. paragraph [0131]).
Secondly, in the third paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “Gourraud has no disclosure related to solar-powered dimming eyewear, no recognition of the sudden solar power loss problem, and no teaching of any hardware-based delay circuit for light signal processing or power management.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Li already teaches both solar-powered dimming eyewear (e.g. paragraph [0060]) and light signal processing (e.g. paragraphs [0058]-[0060]). Thus there is no deficit in Li with regard to this feature, and no combination of references needed to address this feature. Secondly, as noted above, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., solar power loss events or power management) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the fourth paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first argues “A PHOSITA, reviewing Li and Gourraud at the time of the invention, would have no motivation whatsoever to combine Gourraud's output-side software delay module with Li's driver circuit. There is no teaching in either reference that would lead a PHOSITA to modify Li's circuit to solve a problem that Li does not even acknowledge.” In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Li and Gourrand was duly provided, namely: “for the purpose of avoiding too prompt or instable changes in the operation of the variable transmittance smart eyewear as taught by Gourrand paragraph [0153]. Notably, the applicant’s arguments both ignore and fail to address the motivation provided.
Secondly, in the fourth paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes “The Office's proposed combination is nothing more than improper hindsight reconstruction of the present invention, using the applicant's own disclosure as a blueprint to piece together unrelated prior art elements. This is precisely the type of hindsight-based obviousness determination rejected by the Supreme Court in KSR.” In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the paragraph spanning page 8 and 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the combination of Li and Gourrand fails to teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. It appears that the list of issues in this paragraph are duplicative to either the preceding arguments or the list of missing limitations that follow. The preceding arguments have been addressed above, and points 1-3 will be addressed below.
In point 1 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “An automatic delay drive circuit connected between the first power supply system and the controller”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection, Li already teaches an automatic drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0060]: “driver circuit”) connected to the first power supply (paragraph [0060]: “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”). The only missing aspect of this limitation is the presence of a functionality to delay the driving of the controller. This delay is taught in Gourrand, added to Li in the proposed modification, and duly motivated by the teaching of Gourrand that unstable changes to the dimming are undesirable and can be avoided by introducing a latency or delay. Thus applicant’s allegation that this feature is not taught by the prior art is not accurate.
In point 2 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “The automatic delay drive circuit converting the sensed light intensity signal from the first power supply system into an electrical signal transmitted to the controller.” As noted in the rejection, Li already teaches paragraph [0058]: "The driver circuit can output an AC voltage across liquid crystal layer 204 to generate the electric field… The magnitude of the AC voltage can be configured based … the ambient light intensity, such that the orientation and/or twisted angle of the liquid crystal molecules can reflect the ambient light intensity. With such arrangements, the light transmittance of one or more lens assemblies 104 can be configured based on the ambient light intensity”, paragraph [0059]: "The driver circuit can receive the ambient light intensity information" and paragraph [0067]: "The microcontroller of the driver circuit can output different voltages to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104."). Thus the only aspect of limitation 2 that is missing from Li is that the automatic drive circuit is an automatic delay drive circuit. Given that Gourrand teaches introducing a delay, the prior art taken in combination, teaches limitation 2.
In point 3 on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach “The controller determining whether delayed dimming is performed based on the electrical signal from the automatic delay drive circuit.” As noted in the rejection maintained below, Li teaches the bulk of this limitation as follows: “said controller determines whether dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0058]: "The driver circuit can output an AC voltage across liquid crystal layer 204 to generate the electric field With such arrangements, the light transmittance of one or more lens assemblies 104 can be configured based on the ambient light intensity." and paragraph [0067]: "The microcontroller of the driver circuit can output different voltages to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.")." Gourrand is merely needed to introduce a delay functionality to this process, which it does as evidenced by paragraphs [0210] and [0153] as cited in the rejection.
Notably, although the applicant alleges that each of features 1-3 are not taught by the prior art, the applicant fails to address the teachings pointed to in the office action that provide the necessary evidence that these features are not non-obvious a contribution to the art.
No further substantive arguments are made after this limitation is presented, only summaries and conclusions therefrom.
In the interest of progressing prosecution, the examiner notes that many of the reasons why the applicant’s arguments were not persuasive were because the features relied upon are not currently reflected in the claims. If the applicant believes that these are inventive aspects, the examiner recommends claiming them.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2020/0089025 A1 (hereafter Li) in view of Gourraud et al. WO 2025/099300 A1 (hereafter Gourraud).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches “A… dimming device (dimmable eyewear 100), comprising:
a first power supply system (302 paragraph [0060] “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”), said first power supply system being a solar power system (paragraph [0060] “optical sensor 302 can be photovoltaic cells, such as solar cells”), internally equipped with a photoreceptor (paragraphs [0059]-[0060] “Optical sensor 302 can include any device that can convert light into an electrical signal, such as photodiodes… optical sensor 302 can be photovoltaic cells, such as solar cells” Note that photodiodes, photovoltaic cells and solar cells are all photoreceptors in that they receive light and convert it into an electrical signal.);
an automatic … drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0060]: “driver circuit”), said first power supply system being connected to said automatic … drive circuit (paragraph [0060]: “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”);
a controller (paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit”), said controller receives electrical signals transmitted by said automatic… drive circuit (paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit”. The microcontroller of the driver circuit sends and receives electrical signals from the driver circuit that it controls, such as electrical handshakes.); and
a dimming device (lens assemblies 104 with liquid crystal layer 204 which provides dimming see paragraph [0044]: “liquid crystal layer 204 to provide adjustable light transmittance”), said controller being configured for controlling said dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0067]: “the driver circuit can output different voltages based on the user's input detected at input interface 402 to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.”,
wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (paragraph [0060]: “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”) and senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “optical sensor 302 to sense the ambient light intensity”), said first power supply system transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic … drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “The driver circuit can receive the ambient light intensity information”)… and said controller determines whether … dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0058]: “The driver circuit can output an AC voltage across liquid crystal layer 204 to generate the electric field... With such arrangements, the light transmittance of one or more lens assemblies 104 can be configured based on the ambient light intensity.” and paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit can output different voltages… to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.”).”
However, Li fails to teach “a delayed dimming device” wherein the automatic drive circuit is “an automatic delay drive circuit… said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller.”
Gourraud teaches “A delayed dimming device (smart eyewear paragraph [0140]: “the smart eyewear is provided with variable transmission lenses, each including a layer of electrochromic materials, controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses” which can be delayed see paragraph [0153]: “The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation.”), comprising:
a first power supply system (power source 88), … a photoreceptor (paragraph [0131]: “the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,”);
an automatic delay drive circuit (delay module 16), said first power supply system being connected to said automatic delay drive circuit (see Figs. 15 and 17);
a controller (CPU 81), said controller receives electrical signals transmitted by said automatic delay drive circuit (see step 66 in Fig. 15); and
a dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0140]: “variable transmission lenses”), said controller being configured for controlling said dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0140]: “controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses upon detection of variations in the light environment of the wearer”),
wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (power supply 88) … senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0131]: “the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,”), … transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic delay drive circuit (Fig. 15 paragraph [0210]: “determine the actuation data 50 from at least the environment type 33, and also from the wearer status 34 where appropriate (step 65)” Note that step 65 passes to step 66 of determining a delay), said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller (Fig. 15 paragraph [0210]: “set the functionality parameter(s) (step 67),”), and said controller determines whether delayed dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0210]: “delay smart eyewear functionality parameter setting for sake of proper operational latency” and paragraph [0153]: “In some modes, the device 10 is further provided with a delay module 16 downstream of the actuation data generation module 15 and where applicable, of the trigger analysis module 12, and upstream of the output 17, tasked with delaying the sending of actuation data 50 and/or of the trigger data 20. The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation. In some implementations, the related delay is predetermined (e.g. 100 ms, 1 s or between 2 s and 5s). In others, it can be user-entered, a default value being preset.”).”
Gourraud further teaches (paragraph [0153]): “In some modes, the device 10 is further provided with a delay module 16 downstream of the actuation data generation module 15 and where applicable, of the trigger analysis module 12, and upstream of the output 17, tasked with delaying the sending of actuation data 50 and/or of the trigger data 20. The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation. In some implementations, the related delay is predetermined (e.g. 100 ms, 1 s or between 2 s and 5s). In others, it can be user-entered, a default value being preset.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce an automatic delay drive circuit to the dimming device such that the dimming device is a delayed dimming device as taught by Gourraud in the device of Li for the purpose of avoiding too prompt of instable changes in the operation of the variable transmittance smart eyewear as taught by Gourraud (paragraph [0153]).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches “A dimming eyeglass (dimmable eyewear 100), comprising a… dimming device (dimmable eyewear 100), wherein the… dimming device comprises:
a first power supply system (302 paragraph [0060] “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”), said first power supply system being a solar power system (paragraph [0060] “optical sensor 302 can be photovoltaic cells, such as solar cells”), internally equipped with a photoreceptor (paragraphs [0059]-[0060] “Optical sensor 302 can include any device that can convert light into an electrical signal, such as photodiodes… optical sensor 302 can be photovoltaic cells, such as solar cells” Note that photodiodes, photovoltaic cells and solar cells are all photoreceptors in that they receive light and convert it into an electrical signal.);
an automatic … drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0060]: “driver circuit”), said first power supply system being connected to said automatic … drive circuit (paragraph [0060]: “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”);
a controller (paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit”), said controller receives electrical signals transmitted by said automatic… drive circuit (paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit”. The microcontroller of the driver circuit sends and receives electrical signals from the driver circuit that it controls, such as electrical handshakes.); and
a dimming device (lens assemblies 104 with liquid crystal layer 204 which provides dimming see paragraph [0044]: “liquid crystal layer 204 to provide adjustable light transmittance”), said controller being configured for controlling said dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0067]: “the driver circuit can output different voltages based on the user's input detected at input interface 402 to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.”,
and wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (paragraph [0060]: “The solar cells can also provide electric power to the driver circuit”) and senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “optical sensor 302 to sense the ambient light intensity”), said first power supply system transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic … drive circuit (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “The driver circuit can receive the ambient light intensity information”)… and said controller determines whether … dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0058]: “The driver circuit can output an AC voltage across liquid crystal layer 204 to generate the electric field... With such arrangements, the light transmittance of one or more lens assemblies 104 can be configured based on the ambient light intensity.” and paragraph [0067]: “The microcontroller of the driver circuit can output different voltages… to adjust the electric field applied across the liquid crystal layer and the light transmittance of lens assemblies 104.”).”
However, Li fails to teach “a delayed dimming device” wherein the automatic drive circuit is “an automatic delay drive circuit… said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller.”
Gourraud teaches “A dimming eyeglass (smart eyewear paragraph [0140]: “the smart eyewear is provided with variable transmission lenses, each including a layer of electrochromic materials, controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses”), comprising a delayed dimming device (smart eyewear paragraph [0140]: “the smart eyewear is provided with variable transmission lenses, each including a layer of electrochromic materials, controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses” which can be delayed see paragraph [0153]: “The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation.”), wherein the delayed dimming device comprises:
a first power supply system (power source 88), … a photoreceptor (paragraph [0131]: “the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,”);
an automatic delay drive circuit (delay module 16), said first power supply system being connected to said automatic delay drive circuit (see Figs. 15 and 17);
a controller (CPU 81), said controller receives electrical signals transmitted by said automatic delay drive circuit (see step 66 in Fig. 15); and
a dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0140]: “variable transmission lenses”), said controller being configured for controlling said dimming device (e.g. paragraph [0140]: “controlled to modify optical transmission of the lenses upon detection of variations in the light environment of the wearer”),
and wherein said first power supply system powers said dimming device (power supply 88) … senses light intensity of ambient light (e.g. paragraph [0131]: “the unit 2 is provided with light measurement capacities, e.g. involving one or more photodiodes and/or Ambient Light Sensors (ALS). incorporated in the smart eyewear,”), … transmits a signal representing sensed light intensity to said automatic delay drive circuit (Fig. 15 paragraph [0210]: “determine the actuation data 50 from at least the environment type 33, and also from the wearer status 34 where appropriate (step 65)” Note that step 65 passes to step 66 of determining a delay), said automatic delay drive circuit converts the signal into an electrical signal transmitted to said controller (Fig. 15 paragraph [0210]: “set the functionality parameter(s) (step 67),”), and said controller determines whether delayed dimming is performed based on the electrical signal (paragraph [0210]: “delay smart eyewear functionality parameter setting for sake of proper operational latency” and paragraph [0153]: “In some modes, the device 10 is further provided with a delay module 16 downstream of the actuation data generation module 15 and where applicable, of the trigger analysis module 12, and upstream of the output 17, tasked with delaying the sending of actuation data 50 and/or of the trigger data 20. The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation. In some implementations, the related delay is predetermined (e.g. 100 ms, 1 s or between 2 s and 5s). In others, it can be user-entered, a default value being preset.”).”
Gourraud further teaches (paragraph [0153]): “In some modes, the device 10 is further provided with a delay module 16 downstream of the actuation data generation module 15 and where applicable, of the trigger analysis module 12, and upstream of the output 17, tasked with delaying the sending of actuation data 50 and/or of the trigger data 20. The delay module 16 enables to introduce latency so as to avoid too prompt or instable changes in operation. In some implementations, the related delay is predetermined (e.g. 100 ms, 1 s or between 2 s and 5s). In others, it can be user-entered, a default value being preset.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce an automatic delay drive circuit to the dimming device such that the dimming device is a delayed dimming device as taught by Gourraud in the device of Li for the purpose of avoiding too prompt of instable changes in the operation of the variable transmittance smart eyewear as taught by Gourraud (paragraph [0153]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the Li – Gourraud combination teaches “The delayed dimming device according to claim 1, and the dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7” however, Li fails to teach “further comprising a manual delay adjustment circuit, wherein said manual delay adjustment circuit is connected to said controller, and said manual delay adjustment circuit is configured to manually adjust a duration of delayed dimming of said dimming device by said controller.”
Gourraud teaches “a manual delay adjustment circuit (paragraph [0153]: “In some implementations, the related delay… can be user-entered.”), wherein said manual delay adjustment circuit is connected to said controller (see Fig. 17 I/O devices 84 are connected to CPU 81), and said manual delay adjustment circuit is configured to manually adjust a duration of delayed dimming of said dimming device by said controller (paragraph [0153]: “In some implementations, the related delay… can be user-entered.”).”
Gourraud further teaches (paragraph [0153]): “In some implementations, the related delay is predetermined (e.g. 100 ms, 1 s or between 2 s and 5s). In others, it can be user-entered, a default value being preset.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a manual delay adjustment circuit into the dimming eyewear of the Li – Gourraud combination for the purpose of allowing the latency to differ from a preset default value as taught by Gourraud (paragraph [0153]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the Li – Gourraud combination teaches “The delayed dimming device according to claim 1, and the dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7” and Li further teaches “wherein said dimming device is equipped with a dimming film (liquid crystal layer 204 which is a film because it is a flexible, laminate layer see paragraph [0043]: “Liquid crystal layer 204 can be made flexible but strong enough to survive three-dimensional deformation, to laminate liquid crystal 204 onto the near-sighted correction spherical lens.”), said dimming film comprising sequentially stacked layers of a first substrate layer (substrate 250), a first conductive layer (paragraph [0050]: “substrates 250 and 252, which can be attached to … electrodes (not shown in FIG. 2B).” Thus there is a conductive electrode layer associated with each substrate. The sequential stacking of the substrate and electrode is a genus with only two species, either the substrate is outside of the electrode layer, or the electrode layer is outside of the substrate. Since this is a genus with only two species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both possibilities including the claimed order.1), a liquid crystal layer (layer with liquid crystal molecules 230), a second conductive layer (paragraph [0050]: “substrates 250 and 252, which can be attached to … electrodes (not shown in FIG. 2B).” Thus there is a conductive electrode layer associated with each substrate. The sequential stacking of the substrate and electrode is a genus with only two species, either the substrate is outside of the electrode layer, or the electrode layer is outside of the substrate. Since this is a genus with only two species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both possibilities including the claimed order.2), and a second substrate layer (substrate 252); and
said controller is electrically connected to both said first conductive layer and said second conductive layer (see Fig. 2C and paragraph [0050]: “the driver circuit applies an electric field across liquid crystal molecules 230 between substrates 250 and 252”), to apply a driving voltage to said first conductive layer and said second conductive layer (see v1 and v2 in Fig. 2C).”
Regarding claim 13, the Li -Gourraud combination teaches “The dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7,” and Li further teaches “further comprises a frame (frame 102), said delayed dimming device being fixedly installed on said frame (the lens assemblies 104 are fixedly installed in frame 102 at least to an extent typical for eyewear).”
Regarding claim 14, the Li -Gourraud combination teaches “The dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7,” and Li further teaches “further comprising temple arms (the temple arms of eyewear 100 in Fig. 3A or 3B), said delayed dimming device being fixedly installed on said temple arms (Let the delayed dimming device include both the lens assemblies 104 and the lens rim portions of frame 102. Then the lenses and the lens rims are fixedly installed on the temple arms at least to an extent typical for eyewear).”
Regarding claim 15, the Li -Gourraud combination teaches “The dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7,” and Li further teaches “further comprising lenses (lens 202), said dimming device being fixedly adhered to a surface of said lenses (see Fig. 2A and paragraph [0043]: “laminate liquid crystal 204 onto the near-sighted correction spherical lens.”).”
Claims 2, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2020/0089025 A1 (hereafter Li) in view of Gourraud et al. WO 2025/099300 A1 (hereafter Gourraud) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Gunz et al. US 5,315,099 (hereafter Gunz), Chettiar et al. US 2021/0218251 A1 (Chettiar) and Billerbeck et al. US 3,387,199 (hereafter Billerbeck).
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8 and 11 the Li – Gourraud combination teaches the delayed dimming device according to claim 1, and the dimming eyeglasses according to claim 7. However Li fails to teach (claims 2 and 8) “further comprising: a second power supply system, wherein said second power supply system is internally equipped with a backup battery, said second power supply system is connected to said automatic delay drive circuit, and said first power supply system is configured to charge the backup battery within said second power supply system” and (claims 5 and 11) “wherein said automatic delay drive circuit comprises a first diode, a second diode, a transistor, a first resistor, a second resistor, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor; and wherein under light exposure, said first power supply system directly powers said controller through the first diode, and simultaneously charges the backup battery in said second power supply system through the second resistor and the fourth resistor.”
However, it should be noted that Li teaches the use of either a solar cell or a battery as the power source of the dimming device (see paragraphs [0060] and [0067]).
Gunz teaches a liquid crystal dimming device with solar cells. Gunz teaches (col. 4 lines 28-31): “It is noted that the specific construction of … the electronic circuit is within the average skill of the expert.”
Chettiar teaches a system having a solar photovoltaic source that charges batteries. Chettiar further teaches (paragraph [0112]): “Each individual photovoltaic cell in the solar PV system may also represent a node to be connected to Hosts 1 and 2. Electronic components such as resistors, capacitors, comparators, transistors, diodes and inductors may also be nodes.”
Billerbeck teaches (claims 2 and 8) “a second power supply system (battery cells 14 and 15), wherein said second power supply system is internally equipped with a backup battery (battery cells 14 and 15), said second power supply system is connected to said … drive circuit (e.g. col. 2 lines 52-56: “the solar cells 11 supply current to the electrical loads of the satellite connected 55 across load resistors 12 and 13 in parallel with 8 cells of a nickel-cadmium battery”), and said first power supply system is configured to charge the backup battery within said second power supply system (see Fig. 1).”
(claims 5 and 11) “wherein said automatic delay drive circuit comprises a first diode (e.g. Zener diode 21), a second diode (e.g. Zener diode 22), a transistor (transistors 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 61, 62, transistors of stage 18), a first resistor, a second resistor, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor (see the plurality of numbered and un-numbered resistors in Fig. 1 such as 16, 17, 20, 23, 38, 40, 41, 51, and 53); and
wherein under light exposure, said first power supply system directly powers said controller (load resistors 12, 13) through the first diode (diode 22), and simultaneously charges the backup battery in said second power supply system (batteries 14 and 15) through the second resistor and the fourth resistor (any two of sampling resistors 16 and 17 and transistors 31 and 32 which act as resistors when needed see Fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 44-57).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second power supply system including back-up batteries as taught by Billerbeck in the device of the Li – Gourraud combination, because Li already teaches that either a solar cell or a battery are appropriate power sources for the dimming device and Billerbeck teaches that a solar power source can be used both directly to power a load as well as to charge a back-up battery thereby making use of the advantages of both systems.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt a circuit as claimed in claims 5 and 11 as taught by Billerbeck in the device of the Li – Gourraud – Billerbeck combination because Gunz teaches that the configuration of the electrical circuit in such a dimming device is within ordinary skill and Chettiar teaches that each of the claimed electronic components of diodes, transistors and resistors may be utilized as nodes within a solar photovoltaic/battery circuit system.
Note that the combination of limitations “said second power supply system is connected to said automatic delay drive circuit… wherein said automatic delay drive circuit comprises…” are considered to be taught by the combination of references because Billerbeck teaches such a second power supply system and Gourraud teaches the incorporation of an automatic delay drive circuit into the controller.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2020/0089025 A1 (hereafter Li) in view of Gourraud et al. WO 2025/099300 A1 (hereafter Gourraud) as applied to claims 3 and 9 above and further in view of Lin CN 115308930 A (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the Li – Gourraud combination teaches the delayed dimming device according to claim 3, and the dimming eyeglasses according to claim 9. However Li fails to teach “wherein said manual delay adjustment circuit is equipped with a physical switch, said physical switch having at least two adjustment positions, and each of said adjustment positions corresponds to an output voltage of said controller.”
Gourraud teaches “wherein said manual delay adjustment circuit is equipped with a physical switch (e.g. paragraph [0121]: “It should be understood that the data processing elements shown in the figures may be implemented in various forms of hardware, software or combinations thereof… which may include a processor, memory and input/output interfaces.” and paragraph [0213]: “one or several I/O (Input/Output) devices 84 such as for example… a keyboard, a mouse or a joystick;”. A keyboard, a mouse and a joystick all involve physical switches to input user preferences.).”
Lin teaches “a physical switch (control switch 11), said physical switch having at least two adjustment positions (page 5 eighth paragraph “the first control switch 11 from high to low is divided into three gears”), and each of said adjustment positions corresponds to an output voltage of said controller (page 5 eighth paragraph “in the manual adjusting mode short according to the first control switch 11 can adjust the transmittance of the lens, preferably the first control switch 11 from high to low is divided into three gears, so as to control the input voltage of the flexible liquid crystal film 302”).”
Lin further teaches (page 5 eighth paragraph) “the first control switch 11 can control the input voltage of the flexible liquid crystal film 302 through the controller 12, so as to adjust the transmittance of the flexible liquid crystal film 302, namely adjusting the transparent state of the flexible liquid crystal film 302, if the input voltage is higher, the flexible liquid crystal film 302 colour is darker, the light transmittance is lower, when the input voltage is lower the flexible liquid crystal film 302 color is transparent, then the transmittance is higher… in the manual adjusting mode short according to the first control switch 11 can adjust the transmittance of the lens, preferably the first control switch 11 from high to low is divided into three gears, so as to control the input voltage of the flexible liquid crystal film 302”.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the input/output device of Gourraud in the device of the Li -Gourraud combination, a physical switch having at least three positions as taught by Lin so that the user can adjust the transmittance of the liquid crystal film in the transparent state as desired by the user (Lin page 5 eighth paragraph).
Note that the claim merely requires that a physical switch having at least two adjustment positions that correspond to voltages must be part of the delay adjustment circuit, not that the delay itself must be adjusted by use of different voltages. Thus, taken in combination, the prior art is considered to teach “wherein said manual delay adjustment circuit is equipped with a physical switch, said physical switch having at least two adjustment positions, and each of said adjustment positions corresponds to an output voltage of said controller”. In particular, Gourraud establishes a manual adjustment circuit that both controls the manually set delay and uses physical input devices, and Lin discloses a physical manual input device with three positions which controls the voltage applied to the light dimming film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okaue et al. US 5,015,086 “Electronic Sunglasses” pertinent to at least claims 1, 2, 7 and 8:
col. 1 lines 11-17: “The present invention relates generally to electronic sunglasses, and, in particular, to transmittance-varying sunglasses which employ the electro-optical effect of a liquid crystal material and a solar cell which serves both as a power source for driving the liquid crystal and as a sensor for detecting the quantity of ambient light.”
col. 6 lines 38-44: “The capacitor 11 serves to keep the circuit operated for a while even if the outside illumination is changed from a high mode to a low mode. This is effective in preventing the frequent change of transmittance of the lens, resulting in putting no annoyance to a user.”
See also col. 5 line 56 to col. 6 line 3.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
2 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Prosecution Insights