DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samec et al. (PGPUB 20160270656, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Samec discloses a method for determining a personalized value of an optical feature of a corrective ophthalmic lens intended to be worn in front of an eye of an individual for correcting his vision ([1684], 1400), the method comprising:
determining an initial value of the optical feature based on a visual test performed by the individual ([1701]);
equipping the individual with a trial optical corrective device in front of the eye of the individual (Fig. 14), the trial optical corrective device providing a correction complying with the initial value of said optical feature and with an eyewear (1502, eyewear 1400), the trial optical corrective device being placed between the eye and the eyewear ([1684]-[1686]), the eyewear being adapted to immerse the individual in a virtual environment (1504);
determining an adjustment value of said optical feature based on a visual task performed by the individual in the virtual environment (1506-1510);
calculating the personalized value of said optical feature based at least on the initial value and the adjustment value (1512), wherein
the visual task is representative of at least one of:
driving, walking, using a digital device, gaming or shopping (use of the electronic display as described in [1701]);
an environment known by the individual before equipping the eyewear (an environment that displays an eyechart, [1704], which would be known to any individual with experience with acquiring prescription glasses);
a reading visual task wherein a size of characters depends on an age of the individual ([1703], and please note that, for example, myopia progression is at least partially determined by the age of the individual).
Regarding claim 2, Samec discloses wherein the trial optical corrective device comprises a mechanism adapted to mount the trial optical corrective device in the eyewear ([1686]-[1687] where adaption optics are mounted to 1400), or a frame adapted to be placed on a head of the individual before placing the eyewear on head of the individual.
Regarding claim 3, Samec discloses wherein the adjustment value is determined based on a subjective assessment of the visual task by the individual ([1704]) or on an objective assessment comprising at least one of the following:
a measurement of a posture of the individual, a measurement of a head or gaze direction ([1705]), and a performance or a success rate of the individual performing the visual task.
Regarding claim 4, Samec discloses wherein the individual is placed in a natural posture when performing the visual task ([1706] comfortable observation would imply that the posture is not unnatural).
Regarding claim 6, Samec discloses wherein the virtual environment seen by the individual when equipped with the eyewear depends on a position of a head of the individual ([1542]).
Regarding claim 7, Samec discloses wherein the virtual environment is generated by virtual reality or mixed reality ([1684]).
Regarding claim 8, Samec discloses wherein determining the adjustment value of said optical feature is based on a plurality of visual tasks performed by the individual in the virtual environment (1506-1508-1510 are repeated, iterated, steps).
Regarding claim 9, Samec discloses wherein the eyewear has at least one of the following parameters:
a pixel angle resolution smaller than 1 minute,
a projection distance comprised between 75 cm and 1.5 m,
a field of view greater than 90 degrees ([1871]),
a display frame rate greater than 60Hz ([1454]),
a luminance greater than 25cd/m2.
Regarding claim 10, Samec discloses further comprising adapting the trial optical corrective device such that the trial optical corrective device provides a correction complying a sum of the initial value and the adjustment value and determining another adjustment value of said optical feature based on another visual task performed by the individual in the virtual environment (steps of 1502-1512 and the iterative steps of 1506-1510),
wherein calculating the personalized value of said optical feature is also based on said other adjustment value (1502-1512).
Regarding claim 11, Samec discloses further comprising determining a bias value of the optical feature based on a bias visual task performed by the individual in the virtual environment, said bias visual task being designed such that it reproduces the visual test performed for determining the initial value, wherein the personalized value is corrected to account for the bias value (Steps 1502-1512 where the bias value is the incremental change in prescription).
Regarding claim 12, Samec discloses further comprising placing a final optical device in front of the eye of the individual, the final optical device providing a correction complying with the personalized value, and of validating the final optical device based on a validation visual task performed by the individual in the virtual environment (Steps 1502-1512 where the validation is performed by the subjective responses of the wearer).
Regarding claim 13, Samec discloses wherein the trial optical corrective device comprises at least one of the following:
a trial lens having at least one predetermined optical property (any lens within 1400 would inherently have at least one predetermined optical property);
an active lens having at least one adaptive optical property;
a light field display (1468); and
a movable ophthalmic lens mounted in a frame such that the distance between the movable ophthalmic lens and the eye is adaptable ([1440]).
Regarding claim 14, Samec discloses further comprising manufacturing, ordering, or selecting the ophthalmic lens such that the optical feature of the ophthalmic lens is equal to personalized value (step 1512 is the end result of the iterative process of determining a corrective lens power prescription equal to the personalized value and is selected for use in the device) or to a rounded value determined by rounding the personalized value to the closest or a second closest multiple of a basic value.
Regarding claim 15, Samec discloses a system for determining a personalized value of an optical feature of a corrective ophthalmic lens intended to be worn in front of an eye of an individual for correcting his vision ([1684], 1400), the system comprising:
a trial optical corrective device adapted to be place in front of an eye of an individual, the trial optical corrective device providing a correction to an individual complying with an initial value of an optical feature ([1701]);
an eyewear (1400) adapted to be placed in front of the trial optical corrective device worn by the individual and adapted to immerse the individual in a virtual environment, the eyewear being designed to present, in the virtual environment, a visual task to the individual adapted to determine an adjustment value (1504);
a processing unit programmed calculate a personalized value of said optical feature based at least on the initial value and the adjustment value (1510-1512 and 1711-1713 where incremental changes would inherently require some sort of processor to calculate the changes), wherein
the visual task is representative of at least one of:
driving, walking, using a digital device, gaming or shopping (use of the electronic display as described in [1701]);
an environment known by the individual before equipping the eyewear (an environment that displays an eyechart, [1704], which would be known to any individual with experience with acquiring prescription glasses);
a reading visual task wherein a size of characters depends on an age of the individual ([1703], and please note that, for example, myopia progression is at least partially determined by the age of the individual).
Regarding claim 17, Samec discloses wherein the eyewear is designed to present, in the virtual environment, a bias visual task designed such that it reproduces a visual test performed for determining the initial value, and
the processing circuitry is programmed to determine a bias value of the optical feature based on the bias visual task and to correct the personalized value to account for the bias value (Steps 1502-1512 where the bias value is the incremental change in prescription).
Regarding claim 18, Samec discloses a method for determining a personalized value of an optical feature of a corrective ophthalmic lens intended to be worn in front of an eye of an individual for correcting his vision ([1684], 1400), the method comprising:
determining an initial value of the optical feature based on a visual test performed by the individual ([1701]);
equipping the individual with a trial optical corrective device in front of the eye of the individual (Fig. 14), the trial optical corrective device providing a correction complying with the initial value of said optical feature and with an eyewear (1502, eyewear 1400), the trial optical corrective device being placed between the eye and the eyewear ([1684]-[1686]), the eyewear being adapted to immerse the individual in a virtual environment (1504);
determining an adjustment value of said optical feature based on a visual task performed by the individual in the virtual environment (1506-1510);
calculating the personalized value of said optical feature based at least on the initial value and the adjustment value (1512), wherein
the trial optical corrective device comprises an active lens having at least one adaptive optical property ([1512] reconfigurable lenses).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s remarks dated 1/29/2026 page 9, applicant states that Samec is directed towards mimicking classic ophthalmic tests (visual charts or templates) and does not disclose visual tasks representative of activities the individual intends to perform with the ophthalmic lens. The office respectfully disagrees. A “classical” eyechart comprises letters and/or numbers of varying sizes that a patient must attempt to identify. This is sufficient to “represent” a user’s intended use of reading.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding claim 18, applicant argues that Samec does not disclose the trial optical device including an adaptive lens. Samec discloses adaptive lenses throughout the disclosure ([1512], [1578], [1581] and [1614] provide a few examples).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights