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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherlen et al. (US 2019/0212581).
Regarding Claim 1, Scherlen discloses a method for determining a filter for a visual equipment intended to be placed in front of the eye of a wearer (Abstract, lines 1-5, a filter for ophthalmic lenses placed in front of the eyes of the wearer for improving visual performance), said filter being able to improve motion sensitivity of said wearer (Abstract, lines 7-9, a filter for ophthalmic lenses for improving visual performance which can be a dynamic sensitivity, Paragraph 0398, the measurements can include movement perception), the method comprising the following steps:
subjecting the wearer to a plurality of visible light spectra having different levels of light intensity within the range of wavelengths from 400 to 600 nm (Paragraphs 0376-0378, light flux in the range of 400-680 nm);
Scherlen does not specifically disclose wavelengths from 400 to 600 nm.
However, Scherlen discloses range of 400-680 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wavelengths from 400 to 600 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another range. (MPEP 2144.05)
determining a value representative of a dynamic contrast sensitivity (Paragraph 0398, the measurements can include movement perception) of the wearer for each of the plurality of light spectra (Paragraph 0390, lines 1-9, visual performance threshold being a “value”, results being determined by both degree of absorption and the spectral response, Paragraph 0396, lines 1-5);
selecting at least one light spectrum based on the values improving the dynamic contrast sensitivity (Paragraph 0390, lines 1-9, visual performance threshold being a “value”, results being determined by both degree of absorption and the spectral response, which is a perception test, Paragraph 0398, the measurements can include movement perception); and
determining the filter based on the at least one selected light spectrum (Paragraph 0394, lines 1-4, filter is determined, from Paragraph 0390, the spectral response can also be used to determine the filter).
Regarding Claim 4, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the step of determining the value representative of the dynamic contrast sensitivity of the wearer for each of the plurality of light spectra comprises the step of measuring the pupil diameter (Paragraph 0462, lines 1-4, a variant of the method can include, Paragraph 0468, pupil diameter) of the wearer for each of the plurality of light spectra.
Regarding Claim 9, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the value representative of the dynamic contrast sensitivity of the wearer for each of a plurality of light spectra is determined based on a perception test (Paragraph 0390, lines 1-9, visual performance threshold being a “value”, results being determined by both degree of absorption and the spectral response, which is a perception test, Paragraph 0398, the measurements can include movement perception).
Regarding Claim 10, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the perception test comprises the step of determining at least one feature of a dynamic visual stimulus (Paragraph 0398, the measurements can include movement perception).
Regarding Claim 11, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the perception test comprises the step of determining the direction of the dynamic visual stimulus (Paragraph 0379, lines 1-2, test may include a directional illuminance).
Regarding Claim 12, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the plurality of light spectra comprises light spectra having a luminance ranging from 50 cd/m2 to 300 cd/m2.
However, Scherlen discloses range of 0 to 20,000 lux (Paragraph 0377, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range of 50 cd/m2 to 300 cd/m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another range. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 13, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the filter is determined at step iv) based on the at least one selected light spectrum and selected transmission of the filter (Paragraph 0394, lines 1-4, filter is determined, from Paragraph 0390, the spectral response can also be used to determine the filter).
Regarding Claim 15, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein an ophthalmic lens intended to be placed in front of the eye of a wearer (Abstract, lines 1-5, a filter for ophthalmic lenses placed in front of the eyes of the wearer for improving visual performance) to improve motion sensitivity of said wearer comprising a filter determined according to the method of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Scherlen discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the plurality of light spectra comprises light spectra having a luminance ranging from 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/ m2.
However, Scherlen discloses range of 0 to 20,000 lux (Paragraph 0377, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range of 100 cd/m2 to 200 cd/ m2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another range. (MPEP 2144.05)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 14, 16, and 17 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: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 2, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the level of light intensity of at least one of the light spectra is reduced in a wavelength range from 400 nm to a value X; said value X ranging from more than 400 nm to 600 nm; and said value X differing for each of the light spectra.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the step of determining the value representative of the dynamic contrast sensitivity of the wearer for each of the plurality of light spectra comprises the step of determining the cone activity gain for each of the plurality of light spectra from the measurements of the pupil diameter.
Specifically, with respect to claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the filter is selected as having the highest transmittance in a targeted range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lingelbach (US 2015/0323813), Allard et al. (US 11,857,254), Allard et al. (US 2021/0093182), Martins (US 11,809,026), Martins (US 2021/0318557), Scherlen et al. (US 2017/0371179), Scherlen et al. (US 2020/0209648), and Scherlen et al. (US 2023/0050368) are cited to show similar methods and filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872