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 statements (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2024, March 11, 2024 and April 9, 2025 have been 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0141225).
With regard to independent claim 1, although Meynen et al teaches a spectacle lens (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 9-11 and page 4, paragraph [0071]) comprising: an object-side surface (Figure 2, element 2b); and an eyeball-side surface (Figure 2, element 3b) and comprising: a light guide member (Figure 2, element 4); a first lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an object side (Figure 2, element 2); and a second lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an eyeball side (Figure 2, element 3), wherein, when a light beam that passes through the first lens element and the second lens element forms an image to obtain an image of reality (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 6-8, wherein the device provides for a “real life visual field”), a wearer's prescription values are realized with the first lens element and the second lens element (page 1, paragraph [0015], 5-8; page 3, paragraphs [0044] and [0055], lines 12-14; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), a virtual image that is obtained by formation of an image with a light beam that travels in the light guide member and passes through the second lens element is displayed by the second lens element away from the wearer by a predetermined one distance (page 3, paragraph [0057] and Figure 2, element 6, wherein the IS (element 5) produces a virtual image), Meynen et al fails to explicitly teach such a spectacle lens wherein the first lens element includes a progressive power lens that realizes an addition power that is one of the wearer's prescription values. Meynen et al does teach a spectacle lens wherein the lens accommodates a wearer’s prescription, including but not limited to progressive power (page 3, paragraph [0053]; page 3, paragraph [0059]; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens, as taught by Meynen et al, with the specified refractive power to accommodate a wearer’s prescriptive requirement.
With regard to dependent claim 2, although Meynen et al teaches all of the claimed limitations for the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1 above, Meynen et al fails to teach such a spectacle lens wherein the first lens element is a progressive power lens that realizes the addition power among the prescription values, and the second lens element realizes values other than the addition power among the prescription values. Again, Meynen et al teaches a spectacle lens wherein the lens accommodates a wearer’s prescription, including but not limited to progressive power (page 3, paragraph [0053]; page 3, paragraph [0059]; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens, as taught by Meynen et al, with the specified refractive power to accommodate a wearer’s prescriptive requirement.
With regard to dependent claim 3, although Meynen et al teaches all of the claimed limitations for the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the light guide member has a flat plate shape having two flat surfaces (Figure 2, elements 4a and 4b), a surface on which the first lens is adjacent to the flat surface of the light guide member is flat (Figure 2, element 2a), and a surface on which the second lens is adjacent to the flat surface of the light guide member is flat (Figure 2, element 3a), Meynen et al fails to teach the first lens element including one progressive power lens and the second lens element including one minus lens. Meynen et al teaches a spectacle lens wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (Figure 2, element 2b and page 4, paragraph [0075], lines 1-3, wherein, by definition, the lens is a plus lens), the second lens has a concave eyeball-side surface (Figure 2, element 3b and page 4, paragraph [0075], lines 3-5, wherein, by definition, the lens is a minus lens), and wherein the lens accommodates a wearer’s prescription, including but not limited to progressive power (page 3, paragraph [0053]; page 3, paragraph [0059]; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens, as taught by Meynen et al, with the specified refractive power to accommodate a wearer’s prescriptive requirement.
With regard to independent claim 4, although Meynen et al teaches a spectacle lens (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 9-11 and page 4, paragraph [0071]) comprising: an object-side surface (Figure 2, element 2b); and an eyeball-side surface (Figure 2, element 3b) and comprising: a light guide member (Figure 2, element 4); a first lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an object side (Figure 2, element 2); and a second lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an eyeball side (Figure 2, element 3), wherein, when a light beam that passes through the first lens element and the second lens element forms an image to obtain an image of reality (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 6-8, wherein the device provides for a “real life visual field”), a wearer's prescription values are realized with the first lens element and the second lens element (page 1, paragraph [0015], 5-8; page 3, paragraphs [0044] and [0055], lines 12-14; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), a virtual image that is obtained by formation of an image with a light beam that travels in the light guide member and passes through the second lens element is displayed by the second lens element away from the wearer by a predetermined one distance (page 3, paragraph [0057] and Figure 2, element 6, wherein the IS (element 5) produces a virtual image), wherein the first lens element includes a plus lens having a positive lens prescription of a reciprocal of the predetermined one distance (Figure 2, element 2b and page 4, paragraph [0075], lines 1-3, wherein first lens has a convex object-side surface and, by definition, the lens is a plus lens), wherein the second lens element includes a minus lens having a negative lens prescription of a reciprocal of the predetermined one distance (Figure 2, element 3b and page 4, paragraph [0075], lines 3-5, wherein second lens has a concave eyeball-side surface and, by definition, the lens is a minus lens), Meynen et al fails to explicitly teach such a spectacle lens the second lens element includes one functional complex lens, and a spherical equivalent of the functional complex lens is a value obtained by combining a negative lens prescription of the reciprocal of the predetermined one distance and a spherical equivalent of the prescription values. Meynen et al does teach a spectacle lens wherein the lens accommodates a wearer’s prescription, including but not limited to having a prescribed sphere value (page 3, paragraph [0053]; page 3, paragraph [0059]; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacle lens, as taught by Meynen et al, with the specified refractive power to accommodate a wearer’s prescriptive requirement.
With regard to dependent claim 5, Meynen et al teaches all of the claimed limitations for the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the light guide member has a flat plate shape having two flat surfaces (Figure 2, elements 4a and 4b), a surface on which the plus lens is adjacent to the flat surface of the light guide member is flat (Figure 2, element 2a), and a surface on which the minus lens is adjacent to the flat surface of the light guide member is flat (Figure 2, element 3a).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0141225) in view of Almanza-Workman et al (U.S. Patent Number 11,630,325).
With regard to independent claim 6, although Meynen et al teaches spectacles (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 9-11 and page 4, paragraph [0071]) comprising: a spectacle lens (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 9-11 and page 4, paragraph [0071]) having object-side surface (Figure 2, element 2b); and an eyeball-side surface (Figure 2, element 3b) and including a light guide member (Figure 2, element 4); a first lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an object side (Figure 2, element 2); and a second lens element that is adjacent to the light guide member on an eyeball side (Figure 2, element 3), in which, when a light beam that passes through the first lens element and the second lens element forms an image to obtain an image of reality (page 3, paragraph [0055], lines 6-8, wherein the device provides for a “real life visual field”), a wearer's prescription values are realized with the first lens element and the second lens element (page 1, paragraph [0015], 5-8; page 3, paragraphs [0044] and [0055], lines 12-14; and page 4, paragraph [0075]), and a virtual image that is obtained by formation of an image with a light beam that travels in the light guide member and passes through the second lens element is displayed by the second lens element away from the wearer by a predetermined one distance (page 3, paragraph [0057] and Figure 2, element 6, wherein the IS (element 5) produces a virtual image), a spectacle frame (page 4, paragraph [0071], lines 10-11), Meynen et al fails to teach wherein at least any of the first lens element and the second lens element is detachable.
In a related endeavor, Almanza-Workman et al teaches spectacles (Figure 1, element 100) comprising: a spectacle lens having object-side surface (Figure 3); and an eyeball-side surface (Figure 3) and including a light guide member (Figure 3, element 320); in which, when a light beam that passes through the first lens element and the second lens element forms an image to obtain an image of reality (column 2, lines 29-34), a wearer's prescription values are realized with the first lens element and the second lens element (column 2, lines 51-57), and a virtual image that is obtained by formation of an image with a light beam that travels in the light guide member and passes through the second lens element is displayed by the second lens element away from the wearer by a predetermined one distance (column 3, lines 49-53), wherein at least any of the first lens and the second lens element is detachable (column 2, lines 57-61), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the spectacles, as taught by Meynen et al, with the detachable lens, as taught by Almanza-Workman et al, so that damaged lenses or outdated prescriptions may be changed (column 2, lines 60-61).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Meynen et al in view of Almanza-Workman et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 6, wherein Almanza-Workman et al further teaches wherein at least the second lens element is detachable (column 3, lines 10-13).
With regard to dependent claim 8, Meynen et al in view of Almanza-Workman et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 6, wherein Almanza-Workman et al further teaches wherein the spectacle frame includes at least any of a first lens element holder having a mechanism of making the first lens element detachable and a second lens element holder having a mechanism of making the second lens element detachable (column 12, lines 7-9).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Meynen et al in view of Almanza-Workman et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 7, wherein Almanza-Workman et al further teaches wherein the spectacle frame includes at least any of a first lens element holder having a mechanism of making the first lens element detachable and a second lens element holder having a mechanism of making the second lens element detachable (column 12, lines 7-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schuster (U.S. Patent Number 10,606,078), Graf (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0273457), Chiu et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0333552), Weber et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0271935), Adema et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0096772), Le Saux et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0293938), Robbins et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0085300) and Hirayama (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0070859) all teach spectacle lenses having an incorporated waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
29 January 2026