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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of species V (as corrected by applicant) directed to claims 1, 16, 17, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is generic. This is not found persuasive because though claim 1 is generic it is not allowable and also the claims of the different species are patentably distinct.
In the election restriction dated 01/09/2026 the last species in the list i.e. Species IV directed to claims 1, 16, 17 and 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15; “….., a second through hole corresponding to the first through hole, the sensing unit is disposed in the first through hole via the second through hole" should have referred to Species V, instead of another Species IV. As such examiner acknowledges applicant’s election with traverse of species V directed to claims 1, 16, 17, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15; “….., a second through hole corresponding to the first through hole, the sensing unit is disposed in the first through hole via the second through hole".
Claims 2-5, 10, 11, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schleipman (US 6391057).
Regarding claim 1, Schleipman discloses a realistic eyeball (an eyeball that simulates patterns and/or color changes presented by eyes of human; abstract; col. 2; lines 18-53; figs. 1-5), comprising:
a display unit having a display surface (12; abstract; col. 2, lines 18-53; col. 3, lines 9-22 figs. 2-4);
wherein the display surface comprises a pupil area (76; Iris area surrounds the Pupil area; degree of dilation of Iris forms the Pupil; col. 3, lines 29 to col. 4, lines 29; citing, “concentric rings 36a-36d simulate the range of dilation and contraction of a pupil”; col. 5, lines 20; fig. 5) and an iris area (14; fig. 1-5) surrounding the pupil area (abstract; col. 2; lines 18-53; figs. 1-5), and at least one of the pupil area 76 and the iris area has at least one penetration region (22; abstract; col. 3, lines 15-21; figs. 1-5);
a convex lens unit (32; fig. 2, 4; col. 3, lines 10-28) disposed on the display surface 12 and covering the pupil area 76 and the iris area 14; and
a sensing unit (20, 28; col. 3, lines 11-28) disposed at the display unit 12 and located corresponding to a position of the at least one penetration region (22; abstract; col. 3, lines 15-21; figs. 1-5);
wherein, the pupil area 76 and the iris area 14 have different patterns and colors according to different simulated animals (col. 3, lines 28-45).
Regarding claim 6, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, wherein the sensing unit comprises a sensor, and the sensor comprises a visible-light sensor, an infrared sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor, or a combination thereof (20, 28; col. 3, lines 11-28).
Regarding claim 7, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 6, wherein the sensor comprises a camera, a light detector, or a distance detector, or a combination thereof (20, 28; col. 3, lines 11-28).
Regarding claim 8, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, wherein the display unit comprises a display substrate, the display substrate has a plurality of pixels (12; abstract; col. 2, lines 18-53; col. 3, lines 9-22 figs. 2-4), and when the sensing unit comprises an infrared sensor, the display substrate is permeable by an infrared light (col. 3, lines 11-28).
Regarding claim 9, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, further comprising:
a control unit (16; figs. 1, 2, 4) electrically connected to the sensing unit (20, 28; col. 3, lines 11-28) and the display unit (12; abstract; col. 2, lines 18-53; col. 3, lines 9-22 figs. 2-4);
wherein, the sensing unit (20, 28; col. 3, lines 11-28) comprises a light sensor, the light sensor receives a light passing through the convex lens unit (32; fig. 2, 4; col. 3, lines 10-28) and the penetration region (22; abstract; col. 3, lines 15-21; figs. 1-5) and outputs a sensing signal, and the control unit changes a dimension of the pupil area and a dimension of the iris area of the display unit based on the sensing signal (col. 3, lines 56 to col. 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 12, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, wherein the display surface further comprises a sclera area (acrylic shell 30, fig. 2, 70, fig. 5; col. 3, lines 21-28; col. 5, lines 13-20) surrounding the iris area (14; fig. 1-5), the convex lens unit (32; fig. 2, 4; col. 3, lines 10-28) further covers the sclera area (acrylic shell 30, fig. 2, 70, fig. 5; col. 3, lines 21-28; col. 5, lines 13-20), and each of the pupil area, the iris area and the sclera area displays one of the patterns and one of the colors (12; abstract; col. 2, lines 18-53; col. 3, lines 9-22 figs. 2-4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleipman (US 6391057) in view of Budman (US 6576013).
Regarding claim 14, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, further comprising:
a control circuit board (16, 38, 47, 55-57; fig. 4; col. 4, lines 47-67) electrically connected to the display unit and the sensing unit, wherein the control circuit board control display of the patterns and colors of the pupil area and the iris area (col. 3, lines 28-67).
Schleipman did not particularly recite, “…a database, and the database stores a plurality of the patterns and colors of the pupil area and the iris area”
However, Budman teaches of a control circuit board electrically connected to the display unit and the sensing unit, wherein the control circuit board comprises a database, and the database stores a plurality of the patterns and colors of the pupil area and the iris area (abstract; col.3, lines 1-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Schleipman to include a database, and the database stores a plurality of the patterns and colors of the pupil area and the iris area for the purpose of effectively selecting from a memory a stored color or pattern to display for the purpose of proving better performance of an artificial eye.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13, 15-17 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 prior art does not disclose:
Claim 13, the realistic eyeball of claim 12, further comprising:
a light-shielding layer disposed on the display surface and surrounding the sclera area.
Regarding claim 15, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, further comprising: a functional layer disposed on a surface of the convex lens unit away from the display unit.
Regarding claim 16, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 1, further comprising: a light-shielding sheet, wherein the pupil area of the display unit is a first through hole, the display unit further comprises a back surface opposite to the display surface, the light-shielding sheet is disposed on the back surface and has a second through hole corresponding to the first through hole, a dimension of the second through hole is less than a dimension of the first through hole, and the sensing unit is disposed in the first through hole via the second through hole.
Regarding claim 17, Schleipman discloses the realistic eyeball of claim 16, further comprising: a sphere body having a plane, wherein the convex lens unit, the display unit and the light-shielding sheet are arranged on the plane, and the sphere body has a sclera pattern located at a periphery of the plane.
Conclusion
The prior art, Jai (US Pub 2023/0059052) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights