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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the prior art teaches the tracking elements 120 and 122 of Urbach have nothing to do with the functions of capturing any image data. On the contrary, the camera 124 of Urbach is arranged for image capture, but it is disposed outside the contact lens 102 and 104. Therefore, the teaching of Urbach is entirely different from the present application. The examiner asserts that the claim limitation “contact lens element” is broad and the claim does not specify that the camera is formed in a layer of the contact lens that is in contact with a human eye. The examiner asserts that the LED light emitting elements 120 and 122 in combination with the receiving camera are viewed as being included in the claimed contact lens element since the claim does not define the limits of the contact lens element and does not specify that the claimed contact lens element is separate from any external cameras. For example, a claimed camera element could include an image sensor and an illuminator in different physical locations and on different substrates however, collectively could be viewed as an image capturing element including an image sensor and an illuminator. Furthermore, the applicant argues the prior art does not teach wherein the processor generates a viewing angle differential data according to the first image data and the second image data. The examiner disagrees with the applicant and asserts that Urbach teaches on Column 1, Line 61 thru Column 2, Line 20 the image renderer is a computing device that comprises a camera for tracking a linear and angular position of the eyes of a user wearing the powered contact lenses. The image renderer comprises a communication interface for transmitting rendered images to and for receiving tracking data from each of the two powered contact lenses. Tracking logic is executed by a processor comprised within the image renderer, for determining changes in linear and angular positions of a user's eye that wears the powered contact lens. The examiner asserts that determining changes in linear and angular positions of a user’s eye is equivalent to “the processor generates a viewing angle differential data (change in linear and angular positions of a user’s eyes) according to the first image data and the second image data (the process is performed in tracking data from both eye’s). For these reasons the rejection over the prior art is maintained.
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.
1: Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,817,051 B2 Urbach in view of US 2025/0176830 A1 Sen et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Urbach teaches and depicts in Figures 1 and 3 A communication system, comprising: a first contact lens element (102), comprising: a first image capturer (tracking element 120), capturing a first image data (tracking optical data for first contact lens) (Column 6, Line 63-Column 7, Line 14); a first Communication module (element 116 depicted in Figure 1 and discussed on Column 6, Lines 35-44); and a processor (element 300 depicted in Figure 3), coupled to the first image capturer (tracking element 120) and the first communications module (116) (see Figure 3); and a second contact lens element (104 depicted in Figure 1), comprising: a second image capturer (tracking element 122), capturing a second image data (tracking optical data for second contact lens 104); and a second communications module (118), coupled to the second image capturer (122) (see Figure 3), wherein the second communications module (118) transmits the second image data (tracking optical data for second contact lens) to the first communications module (116); wherein the processor generates a viewing angle differential data (change in the tracked angular position of the users eyes) according to the first image data and the second image data. Urbach teaches on Column 1, Line 61 thru Column 2, Line 20 the image renderer is a computing device that comprises a camera for tracking a linear and angular position of the eyes of a user wearing the powered contact lenses. The image renderer comprises a communication interface for transmitting rendered images to and for receiving tracking data from each of the two powered contact lenses. Tracking logic is executed by a processor comprised within the image renderer, for determining changes in linear and angular positions of a user's eye that wears the powered contact lens. However, Urbach does not teach that the communications modules are HBC (Human Body Communications) modules.
Sen et al teaches in Paragraph [0005] and depicts in Figure 1D a system includes a wearable device including electronic contact lenses (222) and an implantable device. The wearable device includes one or more signal transmitters and is configured to be positioned adjacent to or in contact with a human. Sen et al further teaches that it is advantageous when installing communications modules in electronic contact lenses and wearable devices to use HBC (Human Body Communications) Modules to perform the communication in order to make the communications physically secure as well as to improve power efficient compared to RF signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use HBC (Human Body Communications) Modules as taught by Sen et al to perform the communication in the communications modules of the electronic contact lens system of Urbach in order to make the communications physically secure as well as to improve power efficient compared to RF signals.
3: As for Claim 2, Urbach as discussed above in Claim 1 teaches wherein the first contact lens element (102) communicates with the second contact lens element (104) (via image renderer 124). Furthermore, as discussed above in Claim 1, Sen et al further teaches in Paragraph [0037] the HBC modules use a first HBC operational frequency band (frequency range of 10 kHz to 100 MHz was utilized).
4: As for Claim 3, Sen et al further teaches in Paragraph [0037] the HBC wherein the first HBC operational frequency band is from 60MHz to 1OOMHz (frequency range of 10 kHz to 100 MHz was utilized this includes the range from 60MHz to 1OOMHz).
5: As for Claim 4, Urbach depicts in Figure 4 and teaches on Column 11, Line 47 thru Column 12, Line 13 a computing device (106), receiving and processing the first image data and the viewing angle differential data.
6: As for Claim 5, Urbach depicts in Figure 4 and teaches on Column 11, Line 47 thru Column 12, Line 13 wherein the computing device (106) comprises: a third communications module (408), receiving the first image data and the viewing angle differential data from the first communications module (116); and an image processing module (402), coupled to the third communications module (414), wherein the image processing module (402) generates display information (information is generated in the image renderer 106 and sent to the displays (112 and 114) in the contact lenses) according to the first image data and the viewing angle differential data (See Columns 6, Lines 23-62 and Column 12, Line 55 thru Column 13, Line 10). Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1, Urbach does not teach that the communications modules are HBC (Human Body Communications) modules.
Sen et al teaches in Paragraph [0005] and depicts in Figure 1D a system includes a wearable device including electronic contact lenses (222) and an implantable device. The wearable device includes one or more signal transmitters and is configured to be positioned adjacent to or in contact with a human. Sen et al further teaches that it is advantageous when installing communications modules in electronic contact lenses and wearable devices to use HBC (Human Body Communications) Modules to perform the communication in order to make the communications physically secure as well as to improve power efficient compared to RF signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use HBC (Human Body Communications) Modules as taught by Sen et al to perform the communication in the communications modules of the electronic contact lens system of Urbach in order to make the communications physically secure as well as to improve power efficient compared to RF signals.
7: As for Claim 8, Urbach depicts in Figure 4 and further teaches on Column 1, Lines 42-43 and Column 7, Lines 14-28 wherein the first contact lens element (102) further comprises: a first wireless communication module (116), coupled to the processor (116 is connected wirelessly to the communications module and processor of 106 ); wherein the computing device (106) further comprises: a second wireless communication module (viewed as 408 depicted in Figure 4), coupled to the image processing module (402), wherein the second wireless communication module (408) transmits the display information to the first wireless communication module (116), (information is generated in the image renderer 106 and sent to the displays (112 and 114) in the contact lenses), (See Columns 6, Lines 23-62 and Column 12, Line 55 thru Column 13, Line 10).
8: As for Claim 9, Urbach depicts in Figure 4 and further teaches on Column 1, Lines 42-43 and Column 7, Lines 14-28 wherein the first contact lens element (102) further comprises: a first display device (112), coupled to the first wireless communication module (116), wherein the first display device (112) displays a target )image according to the display information (information is generated in the image renderer 106 and sent to the displays (112 and 114) in the contact lenses), (See Columns 6, Lines 23-62 and Column 12, Line 55 thru Column 13, Line 10).
9: As for Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 1.
10: As for Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 2.
11: As for Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 3.
12: As for Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 4.
13: As for Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 5.
14: As for Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 8.
15: As for Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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.
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 JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
March 2, 2026