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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is entered in response to Applicant's amendment and reply of 11/3/25. The claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 5-12 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/3/25 with respect to the claim objection to claim 2 has been considered and the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/3/25 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 but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, Hayashi does not disclose that one or more concentric rings of liquid crystals are turned on or off for controlling an amount of light transmitted through the artificial iris. Specifically, Applicant argues the region 1B in Hayashi does not transmit any light and cannot be changed to transmit any light and is used for changing the color/pattern of the contact lens. Examiner disagrees, the region 1B does transmit light as stated in paragraph [0087]-[0088], where the region 1B can be transparent, which would allow for full light transmittance in the same manner as claimed in the “off” state of the liquid crystals. Furthermore, when the region 1B is changed to a different color or pattern as stated in paragraph [0073]-[0074], it would be equivalent to the “on” state of the liquid crystals which would block some amount of light through the region 1B. This is clearly stated in paragraph [0070], “The region 1B includes … the second adjustment unit 28B adjusts light to be transmitted through the region 1B”.
Applicant further argues, Hayashi does not teach a user-specific profile being stored in the storage unit. Examiner makes notice, these arguments are toward features not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a user-specific profile being stored in a storage unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Hayashi discloses the feature of “user-specific profile” as stated in paragraph [0087], “the adjustment control unit 21 b selects a pattern from, for example, pattern data P1 registered in the storage unit 25 in accordance with a trigger signal”.
Applicant argues the combination of Hayashi with Gupta does not teach the claim limitation of “comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more thresholds in the user-specific profile” 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”. Examiner disagrees, since Gupta teaches taking a measurement of pupil size and then accessing “an initialization threshold stored in the memory” as recited in paragraph [0045] based on the patient’s pupillary response (user-specific profile). In response to the measurement that exceeds a particular stored threshold; “the processor 130 may compare a number… of successive pupil size measurements to one or more transition thresholds stored in the memory” as further recited in paragraph [0045]. Therefore, Gupta teaches 1) A user profile with pupil size measurements 2) saved threshold measurements of that particular user and 3) comparing those threshold measurements with another measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to Gupta for comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more thresholds in the user-specific profile; 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 in order to turn on or to turn off the artificial iris based on said comparing and provide additional threshold data for optimizing the actuation of the artificial iris. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues the rejection of claim 2, where Gupta does not teach multiple different profiles provided for the same patient. Examiner disagrees, the claim recites “a plurality of user-specific profiles” and not “multiple different profiles”. Where two measurements in the same set of data could be interpreted as a single profile. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/3/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12004943 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hayashi (US2016/0299357) in view of Gupta (WO 2013/059656 – cited in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a method for controlling an artificial iris ([0065]), said method comprising:
receiving a measurement of light intensity detected by a sensor (trigger signal detection unit 21a, [0080]; [0090]; [0205]) on or adjacent to the artificial iris (see Fig. 2);
accessing a user-specific profile based on user calibration for determining one or more user-specific thresholds of light intensity of the user-specific profile (storage unit 25 registers settings P1 and P2 which includes color and pattern data, which may be transparent as a default, [0087]-[0088]; where the threshold of light intensity is determined by the adjustment units 28A, 28B that makes adjustment to prevent the color from covering the pupil in consideration of the diameter of the pupil that changes in response to the amount of light detected by the trigger signal, [0090]), wherein the one or more user-specific thresholds are associated with light intensities for triggering a change of light transmittance through the artificial iris ([0090]).
Hayashi discloses concentric rings of liquid crystal (regions of 1A, 1B are concentric circles controlled by liquid crystals of the adjustment units 28A, 28B; [0045], [0066]; [0073]) and further discloses a storage for a single user-specific profile ([0087]-[0088]); yet, does not explicitly disclose the step of comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more thresholds in the user-specific profile; 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. Gupta teaches an ophthalmic device comprising a liquid crystal regions that are controlled (liquid crystal lens 140, which is disclosed as segmented into annular pixels or segments in [0047]), a sensor (annular photodetector 110 and/or photodetector 120), a processor (130), and a memory (150), wherein said memory stores at least one user-specific profile based on user calibration, each user-specific profile being associated with the same user ([0052]), said processor being configured to access one of the at least one user-specific profile for determining one or more user-specific thresholds of light intensity of the user-specific profile ([0045]; [0052]; [0086]; [0087]; [0089), wherein the one or more user-specific thresholds are associated with light intensities (ambient light levels are intensities of light, see Abstract; [0045]; [0087]; [0089]); and comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more thresholds in the user-specific profile ([0045]; [0087]; [0089]) in order to turn on or to turn off the liquid crystal electro-active element based on said comparing (see Abstract, [0033]; [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of comparing the received measurement of light intensity to the one or more thresholds in the user-specific profile; 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 as taught by Gupta with the invention of Hayashi in order to turn on or to turn off the artificial iris based on said comparing and provide additional threshold data for optimizing the actuation of the artificial iris.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi/Gupta makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Gupta further teaches comprising receiving input for selecting one of a plurality of stored user-specific profiles to be active, each user-specific profile being associated with a same user, wherein said accessing comprises accessing the user-specific profile selected to be active (where two measurements of all the stored measurements are interpreted as a single profile, [0045]; [0052]; [0086]; [0087]; [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi/Gupta makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Gupta further teaches comprising receiving input for changing the user-specific profile by changing one or more user-specific thresholds of the user-specific profile ([0045]; [0052]; [0086]; [0087]; [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi/Gupta makes obvious the method according to claim 1, Hayashi further discloses wherein said receiving a measurement of light intensity comprises receiving measures of light intensities for a plurality of different wavelength ranges (the light intensity would comprise different light intensities or 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 wavelength region, [0069]), wherein said user-specific profile comprises one or more user-specific thresholds for each of the plurality of different wavelength ranges (storage unit 25 registers settings P1 and P2 for user setting, [0087]-[0088]; where a single threshold of light intensity is determined by the adjustment unit 28B that makes adjustment to prevent the color from covering the pupil in consideration of the diameter of the pupil that changes in response to the amount of light detected by the trigger signal, [0069], [0090]; where the single threshold would be for each of the plurality of wavelength ranges that interpreted as the more than one range of light that can be transmitted, [0065]); Gupta further teaches 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 profile ([0045]; [0052]; [0086]; [0087]; [0089]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571)272-9062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-4746.
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
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799