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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kernick et al. (US 20200365056 A1; hereinafter Kernick).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kernick discloses a demonstration unit for demonstrating at least one photochromic characteristic of an optical article (photochromic contact lens demonstration device 200; ¶51) having at least one photochromic material (photochromic materials used with the lenses; ¶49), the demonstration unit comprising: a housing defining an interior (housing 202; Fig 2C); at least two activating light sources configured to radiate ultraviolet light into the interior of the housing (UV/HEV LEDs 256 emit UV light that reaches the contact lens region 232; ¶54); at least one visible light source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the interior of the housing (visible LEDs are capable to emit light in the visible spectrum; ¶54); and a control device operatively connected to the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (both UV/HEV LEDs and visible LEDs are activated by the control circuit 204, which means they are operatively connected; ¶54), wherein the control device is configured to control operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source to activate at least one photochromic compound of the at least one photochromic material (both UV/HEV LEDs and visible LEDs are activated by the control circuit 204; ¶54) based on at least one predetermined spectral profile (although the use of the term spectral profile is not used, these wavelength measurements represent spectral profiles to describe these outputs in an ultraviolet light spectrum and they can be configured to a specific wavelength, such as 405nm; ¶54) corresponding to a simulated outdoor lighting condition (UV/HEV LEDs can emit light including a wavelength between 200-460nm, which mimics the wavelength range necessary to simulate outdoor lighting conditions; ¶54).
Regarding claim 3, Kernick discloses wherein the control device is configured to control an activation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (controlling these light sources also includes activating them; ¶54).
Regarding claim 4, Kernick discloses wherein the control device is configured to control an intensity of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (intensity is defined in the specification of the present invention as duration and output. For duration there is a defined demonstration time period and the control circuit can be programmed to maintain activation of the visible LEDs for defined period of time in ¶60-61 and the output is controlled by a light selector circuit that is configured to activate either UV/HEV LEDs or visible LEDs based on the light selection signal and direct power to the LEDs in ¶64).
Regarding claim 9, Kernick discloses further comprising an inspection platform within the interior of the housing (slot 208; Fig 2A) configured for supporting at least a portion of the optical article (contact lens package inserted into the slot 208; ¶52).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Kernick discloses further comprising at least one heating device configured to heat at least a portion of the interior of the housing (heating element 245; Fig 2D).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick.
Regarding claim 12, Kernick does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing comprises a door for enclosing the interior of the housing. However, Kernick does disclose the use of a drawer formed by the contact lens package 102 in Fig 2A (shown below) that can be used a simple substitution of a door to enclose an opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
919
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results. In this case, the specification of the current invention notes that various well known components can be utilized to enclose an opening (¶63 and drawer 120 in Fig 1). See MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick.
Regarding claim 2, Kernick discloses wherein the at least one predetermined spectral profile corresponding to the simulated outdoor lighting condition is generated by controlling each of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (although the use of the term spectral profile is not used, these wavelength measurements represent spectral profiles by controlling the UV/HEV LEDs and visible LEDs ; ¶54). Kernick does not explicitly disclose the at least one predetermined spectral profile corresponding to the simulated outdoor lighting condition is generated by individually controlling each of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source.
However, Tsang focuses on a lighting device with a housing that generates UV light and visible light on a photochromatic layer, which allows us to obtain dynamic light effects. This relates to Kernick because it has a similar mechanism to simulate dynamic light effects (such as simulating outdoor lighting) for photochromatic lens. Tsang teaches the at least one predetermined spectral profile corresponding to the simulated outdoor lighting condition is generated by individually controlling each of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (individually controlling UV-light sources individually; ¶11)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of Tsang for the benefit of providing accurate sunlight. Sunlight is not just “one” light; it is a mixture of UV light and visible light. By controlling the light sources individually, accurate sunlight conditions can be simulated.
Regarding claim 5, Kernick does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least two activating light sources is configured to emit a different spectral output in an ultraviolet light spectrum.
However, Tsang focuses on a lighting device with a housing that generates UV light and visible light on a photochromatic layer, which allows us to obtain dynamic light effects. This relates to Kernick because it has a similar mechanism to simulate dynamic light effects (such as simulating outdoor lighting) for photochromatic lens. Tsang teaches wherein each of the at least two activating light sources is configured to emit a different spectral output in an ultraviolet light spectrum (ultraviolet light sources configured independently which can make their output different; ¶11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of Tsang for the benefit of providing accurate sunlight. Sunlight is not just “one” light; it is a mixture of UV light and visible light. By controlling the light sources individually, such as UV light sources, accurate sunlight conditions can be simulated.
Regarding claim 6, Kernick discloses wherein each of the at least two activating light sources is an ultraviolet light emitting diode (UV/HEV light emitting diodes; ¶54).
Regarding claim 14, Kernick discloses wherein controlling the operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source comprises controlling an activation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (both UV/HEV LEDs and visible LEDs are activated and controlled by the control circuit 204; ¶54), and an intensity of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (intensity is defined in the specification of the present invention as duration and output. For duration there is a defined demonstration time period and the control circuit can be programmed to maintain activation of the visible LEDs for defined period of time in ¶60-61 and the output is controlled by a light selector circuit that is configured to activate either UV/HEV LEDs or visible LEDs based on the light selection signal and direct power to the LEDs in ¶64). Kernick does not explicitly disclose controlling the operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source comprises individually controlling an activation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source.
However, Tsang focuses on a lighting device with a housing that generates UV light and visible light on a photochromatic layer, which allows us to obtain dynamic light effects. This relates to Kernick because it has a similar mechanism to simulate dynamic light effects (such as simulating outdoor lighting) for photochromatic lens. Tsang teaches controlling the operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source comprises individually controlling an activation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (individually controlling UV-light sources individually; ¶11)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of Tsang for the benefit of providing accurate sunlight. Sunlight is not just “one” light; it is a mixture of UV light and visible light. By controlling the light sources individually, such as UV light sources, accurate sunlight conditions can be simulated.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick in view of O'Toole et al. (Absorbance Based Light Emitting Diode Optical Sensors and Sensing Devices; hereinafter O'Toole).
Regarding claim 7, Kernick discloses a light sensing device operatively connected with the control device (the light selector circuit 516 acts as a light sensing device because it can sense the signals needed to activate the LEDs; ¶64), wherein the control device is configured to control operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source (both UV/HEV LEDs and visible LEDs are activated by the control circuit 204; ¶54). Kernick does not explicitly disclose the control device is configured to control operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source based on light characteristics sensed by the light sensing device.
However, O'Toole focuses on using LEDs as a light source and a photodiode as a detector and shows that LEDs are commonly used with detectors, which relates to Kernick because it has LEDs as a light source that can be detected in this type of demonstration mechanism with a photodiode. O’Toole teaches the control device is configured to control operation of the at least two activating light sources and the at least one visible light source based on light characteristics sensed by the light sensing device (a photodiode acts as a detection device and its primary purpose is to detect light characteristics; Page 2455 Section 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of O’Toole for the benefit of providing accurate detection and readings across various spectra (UV, visible, IR). By detecting the light, the photodiode can convert it into measurable electrical current or voltage, which allows for the correct assessment of light’s intensity, presence, and characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Kernick does not explicitly disclose wherein the light sensing device is a photodiode.
However, O'Toole focuses on using LEDs as a light source and a photodiode as a detector and shows that LEDs are commonly used with detectors, which relates to Kernick because it has LEDs as a light source that can be detected in this type of demonstration mechanism with a photodiode. O’Toole teaches wherein the light sensing device is a photodiode (Page 2455 Section 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of O’Toole for the benefit of providing accurate detection and readings across various spectra (UV, visible, IR). By detecting the light, the photodiode can convert it into measurable electrical current or voltage, which allows for the correct assessment of light’s intensity, presence, and characteristics.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernick in view of Philip A. McGee (US5071250; hereinafter McGee).
Regarding claim 11, Kernick discloses wherein the at least one heating device comprises at least one heat source (heat source comes from the heating element 245; Fig 2D). Kernick does not disclose at least one fan.
However, McGee focuses on a spectrophotometric instrument with a temperature regulating system and this type of instrument can measure how much light a substance absorbs or transmits at specific wavelengths. McGee relates to Kernick because these instruments are also commonly used to measure how much light (visible and UV) passes through the lens at different stages of activation, allowing manufacturers to fine-tune lens formulas and processes. McGee teaches at least one fan (fan 19 to blow air on both sides of the plate 13; Col 2 lines 15-19).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kernick to implement the teachings of McGee for the benefit of regulating temperature of the demonstration device. Regulating temperature is important because when it comes to photochromatic lens, returning from dark to clear is a thermal process, if you want to demonstrate how the lens clears in an outdoor environment, you would need a fan to quickly pull heat from the lens. Another benefit is regulating temperature to prevent overheating of components, such as the LEDs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715