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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is entered in response to Applicant's amendment and reply of 6/8/26. The claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 5-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12 have been amended. Claim 13 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/8/26 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hayashi (US2016/0299357) in view of Gupta (WO2013/059656) have been fully considered and the amendments overcome the previous rejection. However, a new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Gupta (WO2013/059656).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Gupta (WO 2013/059656 – cited in Applicant’s IDS); or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gupta in view of Hayashi (US2016/0299357).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses a method for controlling an artificial iris (variable diameter aperture that opens and closes, [0047]), said method comprising:
receiving a measurement of light intensity detected by a sensor on or adjacent to the artificial iris (sensor 110/120 detect the brightness or illuminance of incident light 12, [0041]; the sensor is concentric with and completely within the diameter of the pupil therefore it would be on or adjacent to the aperture of the same device, [0040]);
accessing a user-specific light intensity profile that includes user-specific thresholds of light intensity (processor 130 compares measurement signal to one or more thresholds, the threshold parameters are based on pre and/or post-operative measurements of the patients pupillary response, where the transition thresholds represent patients pupil size at low light levels, high light levels; [0045]; the processor can compute the change in pupil diameter compared with reference profiles for that particular subject; therefore, the processor accesses user profiles where the user profiles are interpreted as the thresholds of low light level and high light level, [0046]) corresponding to light intensities for triggering a change of light transmittance through the artificial iris (the threshold parameters are used for determining whether to turn on/off concentric rings in response to commands from the processor 130, [0047]; where the thresholds parameters correspond to light intensities by being based on high or low light, [0045]), wherein the user-specific thresholds are based on user calibration (the device can be calibrated for an individual patient, [0052]);
comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more user-specific thresholds in the user-specific light intensity profile (processor 130 compares the measurement signal to one or more thresholds, [0046]); and
determining, based on said comparing, whether to turn on or turn off one or more concentric rings of liquid crystals of the artificial iris for controlling an amount of light transmitted through the artificial iris (determining whether to turn on/off concentric rings in response to commands from the processor 130, [0047]).
Gupta discloses pupil diameter thresholds in response to low light or high light which is interpreted as light intensity in the rejection above. If Applicant should disagree Gupta teaches thresholds being from light intensity. Hayashi teaches changing the amount of light transmitted through a lens when a threshold is reached, the threshold being from light intensity ([0069]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the pupil diameter threshold data of Gupta to have threshold data be related to light intensity as taught by Hayashi, since the substitution would have yielded the same predictable result of providing data for adjusting the device in response to the threshold data.
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses or Gupta/Hayashi in the alternative makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Gupta further discloses further comprising receiving input for selecting one of a plurality of different stored user-specific light intensity profiles to be active (distinct threshold sets for low light, and high light conditions, [0045]; where the thresholds are interpreted as being “active” when the threshold is reached and the condition is set for low or high light conditions; first threshold parameter is one profile, and second threshold parameter is another profile, [0012]), each user-specific light intensity profile being associated with a same user (reference profiles for a single particular subject that are stored in the memory, [0046]), wherein said accessing comprises accessing the user-specific light intensity profile selected to be active (the stored profile is accessed when the threshold is reached for the condition and the calibration is set for the user, [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta discloses or Gupta/Hayashi in the alternative makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Gupta further discloses further comprising receiving input for changing the user-specific light intensity profile (threshold values may be updated by an antenna 150 such as an inductive coil that is coupled to processor 130, [0038]) by changing one or more user-specific thresholds of the user-specific light intensity profile (where the thresholds can be changed, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta discloses or Gupta/Hayashi in the alternative makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Gupta further discloses the receiving measurement of light intensity comprises receiving measurements of a wavelength of light ([0041]); and comparing each of the measurements of light intensities for a wavelength of light to the one or more thresholds for a wavelength in the user-specific light intensity profile (where the measurement of light is interpreted as the measurement of the change in the pupil size, [0011], where Gupta as modified by Hayashi would substitute this measurement for a measurement of light intensity).
However, Gupta as modified by Hayashi does not disclose receiving measurements of light intensities for a plurality of different wavelength ranges, wherein said user-specific light intensity profile comprises one or more user-specific thresholds for each of the plurality of different wavelength ranges, and wherein said comparing comprises comparing each of the measurements of light intensities for a plurality of different wavelengths to the one or more thresholds for each of the plurality of different wavelength ranges in the user-specific light intensity profile.
Hayashi further teaches wherein said receiving a measurement of light intensity comprises receiving measurements of light intensities for a plurality of different wavelength ranges since Hayashi teaches measuring different light intensities for more than one wavelength range, where the adjustment unit adjusts a wavelength region of light to be transmitted through the region 1A ([0065]) and also can block a threshold of wavelengths such as ultraviolet light and intense light ([0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta as modified by Hayashi so that light intensity is measured in a plurality of different wavelength ranges as taught by Hayashi, for example an ultraviolet range and a visible range, with the user profiles of Gupta containing one or more thresholds for each range in order to block ultraviolet rays and reduce a light amount exceeding a threshold so that the user can protect their eyes from ultraviolet rays and intense light ([0069] of Hayashi).
The modified invention of Gupta as modified by Hayashi would disclose wherein said comparing comprises comparing each of the measurements of light intensities for a plurality of different wavelengths to the one or more thresholds for each of the plurality of different wavelength ranges in the user-specific light intensity profile (Gupta discloses comparing measurements to thresholds in [0011]; where the modified invention would function in the same manner with comparing light measurements to wavelength thresholds in order to adjust the aperture).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta discloses or Gupta/Hayashi in the alternative makes obvious the method of claim 1, Gupta further discloses wherein the user-specific thresholds are based on user calibration conducted on one certain user (the device can be calibrated for an individual patient, [0052]; the thresholds are based on pre and/or post operative measurements of the patients pupillary response, [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKAIL A MANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1879. 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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at (571)272-9062. 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.
/MIKAIL A MANNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
