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 .
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.
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 1-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissler et al. (hereinafter “Weissler” WO-2020 / 141375) in view of Kubota et al. (hereinafter “Kubota” US 2021 / 0382325).
(It should be noted that the Weissler reference was submitted by the applicant via Information Disclosure Statement on 22 September 2023.)
As pertaining to Claim 1, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) an eyewear (i.e., spectacles) for a user seeing an image (i.e., original scenery) when wearing the eyewear (i.e., spectacles), comprising (see Page 2, Ln. 30-32 through Page 3, Ln. 1-2; Page 3, Ln. 29-32 through Page 4, Ln. 1-18; and Page 5, Ln. 10-16):
a light adjusting apparatus (3105) configured to provide a projection light (i.e., projected light rays) which is perceived by a user’s eye (3002) when facing a first surface (i.e., a first viewing surface) of the light adjusting apparatus (3105), such that the user sees a modified image (i.e., a modified scenery image) which is modified from an original image (i.e., an original scenery image), wherein
the light adjusting apparatus (3105) includes a light intensity pattern (i.e., a patch pattern),
the light intensity pattern (i.e., the patch pattern) is an arrangement of a plurality of elements (i.e., microprisms, mirrors, apertures, etc.; see (3007)),
the pattern provided by the light intensity pattern (i.e., the patch pattern) is configured to adjust or alter the light intensity, luminance, or contrast emitted from the original image (i.e., the original scenery image; see Page 11, Ln. 5-14 and Ln. 25-32; Page 12, Ln. 1-8; and Page 12, Ln. 30-33 through Page 13, Ln. 1-10),
the light adjusting apparatus (3105) is configured to provide an increased amount of positive contrast signal (i.e., light contrast on a dark background), for a retina of an eye (3002) of the user, in the modified image (i.e., the modified scenery image) as compared to the original image (i.e., the original scenery image),
the positive contrast signal (i.e., light contrast on a dark background) corresponds to presence of a light stimulus on dark background (see Page 7, Ln. 7-12 and Ln. 16-17; Page 8, Ln. 22-33; and Page 9, Ln. 10-18 and Ln. 32-34).
Weissler does not explicitly disclose that the positive contrast is arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions and/or to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions and/or to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions.
(It should be noted that the term “and/or” is interpreted herein as expressing that one, more, or all recited options are produced by the claimed positive contrast. That is, the claimed invention is interpreted as requiring a light adjusting apparatus that is configured to provide the positive contrast that is arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions and to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions and to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions, and is also configured to provide any one or any combination of these options for positive contrast).
In the same field of endeavor, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A) an eyewear (70) for a user seeing an image when wearing the eyewear (70), comprising a light adjusting apparatus (72, 94, 12) configured to provide a projection light such that a user sees a modified image, wherein the light adjusting apparatus (72, 94, 12) includes a light intensity pattern, and the light adjusting apparatus (72, 94, 12) is configured to provide an increased amount of positive contrast signal (i.e., light contrast on a dark background), such that the positive contrast is arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions (see Page 5, Para. [0069]-[0070] and Page 6, Para. [0078]) and/or to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions (see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0109]-[0110] and [0115]-[0116]) and/or to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions (see Page 8, Para. [0099]). It is a shared goal of Weissler and Kubota to provide a means for treating myopia through retinal stimulation (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0046]-[0047] of Kubota; and see Page 1, Ln. 5-12 and Page 2, Ln. 30-32 through Page 3, Ln. 1-6 of Weissler). Further, Kubota suggests that such treatment can include providing positive contrast arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions and/or to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions and/or to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions (see Page 11, Para. [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weisser with the teachings of Kubota, such that the positive contrast is arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions and/or to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions and/or to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions, as suggested by Kubota, in order to provide a system and method for effectively treating myopia through known applications of positive contrast.
As pertaining to Claim 2, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the modified amount of positive contrast signal (i.e., light contrast on a dark background) is provided by an adjustment of the light intensity pattern, produced by a transmission pattern (see (3105)) on at least one lens (3003) of the eyewear (again, see Page 3, Ln. 29-32 through Page 4, Ln. 1-18; and Page 5, Ln. 10-16; and Page 11, Ln. 5-14 and Ln. 25-32; Page 12, Ln. 1-8; and Page 12, Ln. 30-33 through Page 13, Ln. 1-10).
As pertaining to Claim 3, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the transmission pattern (see (3105)) comprises a plurality of minority regions (i.e., regions of (3105)) of higher transmission than a remaining majority region (i.e., a region of (3103) not having regions (3105)), the plurality of minority regions (i.e., regions of (3105)) being a pattern of apertures (i.e., cavities) and the remaining majority region (i.e., a region of (3103) not having regions (3105)) being the remaining regions which do not contain the plurality of minority regions (i.e., regions of (3105); again, see Page 11, Ln. 25-32; and Page 12, Ln. 30-33 through Page 13, Ln. 1-10; see Fig. 8).
As pertaining to Claim 4, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the plurality of minority regions (i.e., regions of (3105)) are formed as through holes (i.e., cavities) in the lens (3003; again, see Page 11, Ln. 25-32; and Page 12, Ln. 30-33 through Page 13, Ln. 1-10; see Fig. 8).
As pertaining to Claim 5, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the plurality of minority regions (i.e., regions of (3105)) differ from the majority region (i.e., a region of (3103) not having regions (3105)) by a coating (see Page 3, Ln. 29-32 through Page 4, Ln. 1-13 and Page 13, Ln. 14-20).
As pertaining to Claim 6, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the modified amount of positive contrast signal (i.e., light contrast on a dark background) is provided by the light intensity pattern adjustment, produced by a transmission pattern (see (3105); and again, see Page 3, Ln. 29-32 through Page 4, Ln. 1-18; and Page 5, Ln. 10-16; and Page 11, Ln. 5-14 and Ln. 25-32; Page 12, Ln. 1-8; and Page 12, Ln. 30-33 through Page 13, Ln. 1-10).
As pertaining to Claim 7, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A) that the light adjusting apparatus (72, 94, 12) comprises a light source (i.e., supported on a lens, as part of a pixel display, and/or as a projection unit) comprising one or a plurality of light emitters arranged on the eyewear (70) to generate the light emission pattern (see Page 3, Para. [0047]-[0050]; again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weisser with the teachings of Kubota, such that the light adjusting apparatus comprises a light source as disclosed by Kubota in order to provide a means for effectively treating myopia using a structural configuration known in the art to provide such effective treatment capability).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A) that the light adjusting apparatus (72, 94, 12) comprises a plurality of light reflectors (i.e., optics, including mirrors) to generate the light emission pattern by reflecting the light from the one or plurality of light emitters (see Page 5, Para. [0074] in combination with Page 4, Para. [0063] and Page 6, Para. [0077]).
As pertaining to Claim 9, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A) that the plurality of light reflectors (i.e., optics, including mirrors) are selected from a prism, a mirror and a liquid crystal (again, see Page 5, Para. [0074] in combination with Page 4, Para. [0063] and Page 6, Para. [0077]).
As pertaining to Claim 10, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A) an image projector (i.e., (72, 94, 12)) to generate the light emission pattern (see Page 3, Para. [0047]-[0048]; and Page 4, Para. [0058]).
As pertaining to Claim 15, Weissler discloses (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) that the modified image (i.e., a modified scenery image) corresponds to the original image (i.e., an original scenery image) having reversed contrast (i.e., modified contrast; again, see Page 7, Ln. 7-12 and Ln. 16-17; Page 8, Ln. 22-33; and Page 9, Ln. 10-18 and Ln. 32-34).
As pertaining to Claim 16, Kubota discloses (see Fig. 1A, Fig. 2A, and Fig. 3) an image sensor (22); and an image processing circuit (i.e., a processor; see Page 4, Para. [0059] and Page 7, Para. [0087]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissler in view of Kubota and further in view of Chaum et al. (hereinafter “Chaum” US 2010 / 0149073).
(It should be noted that the Chaum reference was submitted by the applicant via Information Disclosure Statement on 22 September 2023.)
As pertaining to Claim 11, neither Weisser nor Kubota explicitly discloses an image sensor; and an image processing circuit configured to map a plurality of positive contrast regions of the original image, each of the plurality of positive contrast regions having a contrast of a center to its surroundings exceeding a pre-determined positive contrast threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chaum discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, and Fig. 17) an eyewear (110, 112) for providing a modified image wherein a light adjusting apparatus (114, 116) that includes a light intensity pattern (116) is configured to provide a projection light (i.e., any arbitrary light), the light intensity pattern (116) being an arrangement of a plurality of elements (i.e., optical facets, reflectors, and/or redirectors; see Page 19 through Page 20, Para. [0556]-[0561]; Page 24, Para. [0618]; Page 26 through Page 27, Para. [0655]-[0662]; and Page 29, Para. [0685]), such that the pattern provided by the light intensity patterns (116) is configured to adjust or alter the light intensity, luminance, or contrast (i.e., a viewed image) emitted from an original image (i.e., an arbitrary image or view of surroundings), and wherein a modified amount of positive contrast signal (i.e., image signal) is provided by the light intensity pattern adjustment (again, see (116, 120)), and the light adjusting apparatus (114, 116) comprises a light source (see (120)) comprising one or a plurality of light emitters (i.e., light emitting diodes; see (36) in Fig. 2) arranged on the eyewear (110, 112) for generating the light emission pattern (see Page 20, Para. [0567]-[0568]), and wherein the eyewear (110, 112) further comprises an image sensor (i.e., an imaging device such as a camera) and an image processing circuit (1700) configured to map a plurality of positive contrast regions of the original image (i.e., any arbitrary regions), each of the plurality of positive contrast regions having a contrast of a center to its surroundings exceeding a pre-determined positive contrast threshold (i.e., any arbitrary threshold; see Page 30 through Page 31, Para. [0698]-[0701]; and note that Chaum suggests that all regions of the image space are mapped).
It is a goal of Chaum to provide a system and method for providing images into the eye of a user by redirecting projection light to the retina (see Page 1, Para. [0002]). In this regard, it is a goal of Chaum to provide a system and method for allowing directed light into the pupil of a user to be controlled such that specific image patterns may be impinged on the eye of the user over a wide range of angles and with significant latitude in controlling the nature of the light (see Page 1, Para. [0005] and Page 2, Para. [0013]-[0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weisser and Kubota with the teachings of Chaum, such that the eyewear comprises an image sensor; and an image processing circuit configured to map a plurality of positive contrast regions of the original image, each of the plurality of positive contrast regions having a contrast of a center to its surroundings exceeding a pre-determined positive contrast threshold, as suggested by Chaum, in order to provide a system and method for allowing directed light into the pupil of a user to be controlled such that specific image patterns may be impinged on the eye of the user over a wide range of angles and with significant latitude in controlling the nature of the light.
As pertaining to Claim 12, Chaum discloses (see Fig. 17) that the image processing circuit (1700) is configured to map a plurality of negative contrast regions of the original image (i.e., any arbitrary regions), each of the plurality of negative contrast regions having a contrast of surroundings to their center exceeding a pre-determined negative contrast threshold (i.e., any arbitrary threshold; again, see Page 30 through Page 31, Para. [0698]-[0701] and again note that Chaum suggests that all regions of the image space are mapped).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the references relied upon by the examiner, considered alone or in reasonable combination, teach or fairly suggest the features recited in Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 in combination with the features of dependent Claim 13. Specifically, none of the references relied upon by the examiner teach or fairly suggest all of the features of Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 in combination with the features “wherein the image processing circuit is configured to map a plurality of negative contrast regions of the original image, each of the plurality of negative contrast regions having a contrast of surroundings to their center exceeding a pre-determined negative contrast threshold, wherein the image processing circuit is configured to calculate the modified image by modifying the image on the plurality of positive contrast regions or on the plurality of negative contrast regions, to obtain a global difference of a first global ratio to a second global ratio, wherein the first global ratio is defined as a difference between a sum of contrast of the plurality of positive contrast regions and a sum of contrast of the plurality of negative contrast regions of the original image, and the second global ratio is defined as a difference between a sum of contrast of the plurality of positive contrast regions and a sum of contrast of the plurality of negative contrast regions of the modified image” as recited in dependent Claim 13. Dependent Claim 14 is allowable due its dependency from Claim 13.
As pertaining to the most relevant prior art relied upon by the examiner, the combined teachings of Weissler, Kubota, and Chaum suggest all of the features of Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11. However, none of Weissler, Kubota, and Chaum, nor any other reference relied upon by the examiner appears to suggest that “…the image processing circuit is configured to calculate the modified image by modifying the image on the plurality of positive contrast regions or on the plurality of negative contrast regions, to obtain a global difference of a first global ratio to a second global ratio, wherein the first global ratio is defined as a difference between a sum of contrast of the plurality of positive contrast regions and a sum of contrast of the plurality of negative contrast regions of the original image, and the second global ratio is defined as a difference between a sum of contrast of the plurality of positive contrast regions and a sum of contrast of the plurality of negative contrast regions of the modified image.”
The claimed combination of features appears to be suggested solely by the applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on a combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant has argued that none of the references relied upon by the examiner in the prior Office Action, namely Weissler and Chaum, teach or fairly suggest the newly presented features of independent Claim 1 wherein “said positive contrast is arranged to blur the image or one or more image portions and/or to increase or decrease spatial frequencies of the image or one or more image portions and/or to reverse the contrast of the image or one or more image portions” (see Remarks at Pages 7 through 9). Respectfully, the applicant’s argument is moot in so much as the combined teachings of Weissler and Kubota, as newly relied upon in the above rejections, plainly suggest all of the features of at least independent Claim 1.
As such, the rejection of Claims 1-12 and 15-16 is maintained for the reasons provided above. Claims 13 and 14 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (US 2020 / 0089023) discloses an eyewear for treating myopia.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623