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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2024 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the terms "long-term protection" and "short-term protection" are not defined in the claim. They are vague and unclear and leave the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which they refer, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
In claim 5, the term "vision experience score" is not defined in the claim. It is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
In claim 12, the term "color perception residual attribute" is not defined in the claim. It is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 will be addressed below according to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
The claims recite a method for evaluating at least one light protection level of at least one optical product intended to face an eye of a user. Thus, the claims recite a method.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites: the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least one short-term light protection score representative of at least one short-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product;
determining at least one long-term light protection score representative of at least one long-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product;
evaluating at least one light protection level of at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores.
The examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application?
The elements in the claim that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: short-term light protection attribute, long-term light protection attribute, one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of determining short-term light protection score representative, long-term light protection score representative, and evaluating at least one light protection level are perform.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the other words, it appears that these identified elements could be considered an abstract idea (the determination can be done by the mind/human). Therefore, the claimed subject matter does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teskey (US Patent 6099126).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Teskey anticipates an optical product (fig. 1) comprising a frame (housing 52) and at least one optical system attached to said frame and intended to face an eye of a user (all components are housed within col. 5, lines 30-35), said optical product comprising a data collecting device (testing system) and a controller configured to perform a method for determining at least one optical product intended to face an eye of a user (includes a processor and recording means bottom of column 5 to column 6), the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least one short-term light protection score representative of at least one short-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product;
determining at least one long-term light protection score representative of at least one long-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product (there is a two stage testing process for discomfort that ranges from broad to precise varying on illumination intensity and other factors col. 7 first and 2nd paragraph); and
evaluating at least one light protection level of at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores (the need for sunglasses with varying tinted lens filters is determined from the test col 7 first and second paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein the method further comprising: determining at least one light environment (col. 6 lines 36-38); and selecting said at least one short-term light protection attribute and said at least one long- term light protection attribute respectively among a group of short-term light protection attributes and a group of long-term light protection attributes, depending on said at least one determined light environment (col 7 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 3, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 2, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein said at least one light environment are selected within a group of light environments, said group of light environments comprises at least one among a bright light environment, a day drive environment, a night drive environment, an indoor environment, a screen at night environment, an in-to-out transition environment and an out- to-in transition environment (different outdoor activity light levels are used for testing, column 6 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 5, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates the method further comprising: determining at least one vision experience score representative of at least one optical product quality attribute of said at least one optical product (col 7 lines 10-15); and determining at least one global short-term light protection score based on said at least one short-term light protection score and said at least one vision experience score(col 7 lines 10-15); wherein said at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product is evaluated based on said at least one global short-term light protection score and said at least one long-term light protection score (col. 7 lines 10-15, determines the need for sunglasses or tinted lenses depending on the responses in the testing).
Regarding claim 6, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein the step of evaluating at least one protection level comprises a step of determining at least one global light protection score of said at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term light protection scores (col. 7, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 7, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 6, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein the method further comprises determining at least two light environments (col. 6 lines 36-38); wherein at least one short-term, at least one long-term and at least one global light protection scores are determined for each determined light environment (col 7 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 10, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein said at least one short-term light protection attribute is one among a transmission attribute, a polarization attribute, a stray light attribute and a spectral attribute (filtering and transmission characteristics are used column 7 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 11, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Teskey further anticipates wherein said at least one long-term attribute is a spectral attribute (transmission, light intensity and filtering are spectral attributes, col 7 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 12, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said at least one optical product quality attribute (fig.1) is one among a transmission attribute, a straylight attribute and a color perception residual attribute (there is a two stage testing process for discomfort that ranges from broad to precise varying on illumination intensity and other factors col. 7 first and 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Teskey discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining at least one light protection need of a user (the user presses buttons indicating discomfort through multiple intensities, so there is at least more than two quantities recorded based on user response, see column 6 lines 43-46); and determining at least one optical product for the user based on said at least one light protection level and said at least one light protection need of the user (the process determines which filtered lens is the best for the user, column 7).
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (US 2012/200847).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses an optical product comprising a frame (paragraph [0038]) and at least one optical system (sunglass lens) attached to said frame and intended to face an eye of a user, said optical product comprising a data collecting device and a controller (the steps performed in paragraph [0042] implicitly require a controller) configured to perform a method for evaluating at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product, the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least one short-term light protection score representative of at least one short-term light protection attribute (FC, paragraph [0043] or alternatively absorption of blue light, paragraph [0041]) of said at least one optical product,
determining at least one long-term light protection score representative of at least one long-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product (UV absorption, paragraph [0041]),
evaluating at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Hall discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of displaying said at least one short-term and said at least one long-term light protection scores onto a same graphic having a first and a second dimensions, said at least one short-term light protection being positioned relative to said first dimension and said at least one long-term light protection being positioned relative to said second dimension (figure 9).
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Citek (EР 2607884 A1 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Citek discloses an optical product comprising a frame and at least one optical system attached to said frame and intended to face an eye of a user, said optical product comprising a data collecting device and a controller (implicitly form the calculations of figures 2 and 3) configured to perform a method for evaluating at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product, the method comprising the following steps: - determining at least one short-term light protection score (figure 2a) representative of at least one short-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product, - determining at least one long-term light protection score (figure 2b) representative of at least one long-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product, evaluating at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores (figure 3a).
.
Regarding claim 4, Citek discloses the method according to claims 1, wherein said at least one short-term and/or said at least one long-term light protection scores are determined using different weightings for said at least one short-term and said at least one long-term light protection attributes, respectively (figure 3a, par.[0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Citek discloses the method according to claim 7, comprising the step of determining a light protection evaluation score based on each global light protection score determined for a determined light environment, wherein said light protection evaluation score is determined using different weightings for said global light protection scores depending on the at least two determined light environments (figure 3a).
Regarding claim 9, Citek discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein said global light protection score is determined using different weightings for said at least one global short-term and said at least one long-term light protection scores (figure 3a).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherlen et al. (EP 3753475 A1 of record).
Regarding to claim 1, Scherlen discloses an optical product comprising a frame and at least one optical system attached to said frame and intended to face an eye of a user, said optical product comprising a data collecting device and a controller (paragraph 22) configured to perform a method for evaluating at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product, the method comprising the following steps: - determining at least one short-term light protection score (paragraph 10, subjective parameter) representative of at least one short-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product, -determining at least one long-term light protection score (objective parameter) representative of at least one long-term light protection attribute of said at least one optical product, evaluating (ranking) at least one light protection level of said at least one optical product based on said at least one short-term and at least one long-term protection scores (par.[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Scherlen discloses the method according to any one of the preceding claim, wherein the step of evaluating at least one protection level comprises a step of determining at least one global light protection score of said at least one optical product based on said at least one short- term and at least one long-term light protection scores (par.[0048-0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roshan (US Patent Publication 2018/0333092) and High (US Patent 10,448,823) both describe doing visual examination using varying light intensity, but do not disclose all of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872