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
The amendments filed 06/30/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Gupta describes lenses ‘capable of covering most, if not all, prescriptions’ but does not use or store a specific wearer's prescription for real-time operation”. Applicant argues that “Gupta mentions far/intermediate/near correction but does not disclose lens-object distance measurements per zone direction. Instead, it refers to broad functional ranges”. Applicant argues that “Gupta discusses a programmable controller applying voltages but not in conjunction with stored vision distance-power state mappings tied to prescription”. Applicant argues that “combining Gupta and Zimanvi would not lead to prescription-based contextual adaptation”.
Regarding applicant argument that “Gupta describes lenses ‘capable of covering most, if not all, prescriptions’ but does not use or store a specific wearer's prescription for real-time operation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require storing the wearer’s prescription as a separate real-time operating parameter. Rather, Claim 1 requires the adjustable dioptric function to depend upon the wearers prescription and vision distance data. Gupta teaches programming and fine tuning the lens according to the wearer’s Rx for far, intermediate, and near vision. Gupta further teaches a range finder providing feedback to the controller that causes the optical power of the lens to dynamically change. Thus, Gupta teaches establishing the lens correction according to the wearer’s Rx and dynamically adjusting that correction according to detected vision distance data, thereby satisfying the claimed dependency upon both prescription and vision distance data. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that “Gupta mentions far/intermediate/near correction but does not disclose lens-object distance measurements per zone direction. Instead, it refers to broad functional ranges”. This argument is misplaced. The rejection expressly acknowledges that Gupta does not expressly disclose this feature and relies upon Zimanyi for the missing teaching. Zimanyi teaches determining a viewed object distance in an eye axis direction and selecting optical power by combining the viewed object distance with the axial power of the progressive lens design. Applicants argument attacks Gupta individually and therefore does not address the combined teaching relied upon for the rejection. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that “Gupta discusses a programmable controller applying voltages but not in conjunction with stored vision distance-power state mappings tied to prescription”. This argument is not commensurate with scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require the stored distance to power mapping itself to be tied to the wearer’s prescription. Claim 1 separately requires the adjustable dioptric function to depend upon the prescription and requires storage of vision distance data and at least two predetermined optic power states corresponding to respective ranges of vision distance. Gupta teaches and ASIC that monitors sensor information and sets electrode voltages according to program lookup tables for various corrections. Gupta further teaches predetermined voltage/power states corresponding to far, intermediate, and near correction modes and range finder data supplied to the controller to determine the applicable distance mode. Accordingly, Gupta teaches storing predetermined power states associated with vision distance ranges and using the provided distance data to select the applicable stored state. The claim does not require permanent storage of the sensor output or any particular data storage format. The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
Regarding applicant argument that “combining Gupta and Zimanyi would not lead to prescription-based contextual adaptation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gupta provides a programmable lens having wearer specific Rx correction, separately controllable lens design, store correction states, and distance responsive optical power control. Zimanyi additionally teaches selecting optical power according to viewed object distance along a viewing direction. The proposed combination therefore results in a prescription-configured lens whose optical power is contextually adjusted accordingly to object distance in the direction associated with the applicable lens region. The references need not individually disclose the complete claimed arrangement because the rejection is based up their combined teachings. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. "In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
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.
Claim 1, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses an optical device for a wearer (Figures 1, 2 and 6), the wearer having a prescription for at least one eye ([0011] discloses: lens capable of creating optical power covering most, if not all optical power prescriptions), the optical device comprising at least:
an active programmable lens ([0011] discloses: programable lens, dynamically changed; [0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface) comprising a first zone (Figure 2 depicts and [0097] discloses: 210, 212, 214, and 216, regions; Examiner notes that region 216 is considered the first zone, moving from the innermost zone to the outermost zone) configured to provide to the wearer, in standard wearing conditions, a correction of said at least one eye based on said prescription ([0045] discloses: lens configured to change optical power to correct for a far, intermediate or near vision correction needs of a wearer; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions), according to a first adjustable dioptric function ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; therefore considered a first adjustable dioptric function), the first adjustable dioptric function depending on said prescription and on vision distance data ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision);
vision distance data providing circuitry configured to provide first vision distance data corresponding to a first distance between a first object in an environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on);
and an optical power controller ([0107] discloses: a controller and a power source) configured to:
store vision distance data ([0106] discloses: predetermined voltages corresponding to electrodes based on correction values and driving lenses; [0111] discloses: correction of needs of wearer by membrane via predetermined voltages; Examiner notes that this is considered stored and means for storing vision distance data) provided by the vision distance data providing circuitry ([0047] discloses: controller with set of predetermined voltages to the membrane for correcting vision correction needs of a wearer) and at least two predetermined optical power states ([0111] discloses: correcting far, intermediate and near vision correction; therefore considered to be at least two predetermined optical power states), each predetermined optical power state corresponding to an optical power value relative to a range of vision distance ([0111] discloses: correcting far, intermediate and near vision correction, which are corrections of power for range of vision distance), and
control the first adjustable dioptric function of the first zone of the active programmable lens ([0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface), wherein the controlling comprises adjusting the first adjustable dioptric function of the first zone of the active programmable lens according to an optical power state based on the provided first vision distance data ([0048] discloses: adjustment based on need of wearer; [0105] discloses: lens may be dynamic and/or tunable).
Gupta fails to disclose an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said first zone, and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens. Gupta and Zimanyi are related because both disclose optical devices.
Zimanyi teaches an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens ([0185] teaches: progressive lens simulator, with optical power progressive lens design, in the eye axis direction, by combining distance of viewed object with axial power of progressive lens; [0187] teaches: viewing and gaze distance image points), defined by said first zone ([0116] teaches: vergence of the axis of the two eyes; Examiner notes that the localized viewing area corresponding to the vergence defined eye axis direction and gaze distance image points is analogous to the claimed first zone), and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens ([0184] teaches: simulate gaze distance used for progressive lens simulator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Zimanyi and provide an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said first zone, and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens. Doing so would allow for more accurate lens transition states and dynamic optical power adjustment, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the prescription of said at least one eye of the wearer comprises power addition ([0099] discloses: add power region; therefore considered power addition).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical device comprises a frame including the vision distance data providing circuitry ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on), the vision distance data providing circuitry being embedded in said frame of the optical device ([0121] discloses: any or all of the sensors can be built into the lens or frame of the eyeglasses).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry comprises a distance sensor ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, further comprising a head inclination measuring sensor ([0123] discloses: MEMS system, for detecting a tilt of the users head), wherein the dioptric function corresponding to one zone of the active programmable lens is provided based on a wearer's head inclination measured value ([0124] discloses: sensor may detect information and send signal to controller to activate/deactivate one or more dynamic components of the lens; [0114] discloses: tilt switch, to change profile of the electric potential to cause the optical power of the lens to change).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Krall et al. (US 10,048,512, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the active programmable lens comprises a second zone ([0097] discloses: 212, region; considered the second zone) configured to provide to the wearer, in standard wearing conditions, a correction of said at least one eye based on said prescription ([0045] discloses: lens configured to change optical power to correct for a far, intermediate or near vision correction needs of a wearer; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions), according to a second adjustable dioptric function ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; [0106] discloses: predetermined voltages corresponding to electrodes based on correction values and driving lenses; Examiner notes that the prior art fine tunes each segment of the pattern electrode with the desired electrical power coupled to the different corrections and regions; [0012] discloses: a plurality of adjustable regions), the second adjustable dioptric function depending on said prescription and on vision distance data ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision),
wherein the first zone and the second zone are adjacent and arranged vertically one above the other or horizontally one next to the other, or diagonally one with respect to the other (Figure 2 depicts: zones as arranged: vertically, horizontally and diagonally with respect to the other, the zones are ellipses), with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens (Figure 2 depicts: different zones with respect to the field of view of the lens: 216, 214, 212, and 210, zones), and
wherein the optical power controller ([0107] discloses: a controller and a power source) is configured to control the second adjustable dioptric function according to an optical power state based on the provided second vision distance data ([0098] discloses: application can activate all of the regions simultaneously; considered means for controlling the second function that controls the second region via electric potential, see [0097-0098]).
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance between said first object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said first object, said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said second zone. Gupta and Krall are related because both disclose optical vision devices.
Krall teaches a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance (Col. 6 line 54- Col. 7 line 25 teaches: 110 distance-vision region and 120, near-vision region along with x.sub.Pn and x.sub.Pd, when wearer is looking at same source 11) between said first object in the environment of the wearer and the lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the lens and said first object (the same source/object is viewed through the distance-vision region and the near-vision region, with respective light rays directed by the source to the respective region points and convergence angles/paths; this is analogous to the first and second zone of Gupta), said first object being in a field of view of the lens, defined by said second zone (the near-vision region 120 is a second lens region/zone through which the same object/source is viewed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Krall and provide a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance between said first object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said first object, said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said second zone. Doing so would allow for better optical correction in each region, thereby improving the overall performance and efficiency of the optical system.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 2, wherein at least two zones of the active programmable lens, having respective different dioptric functions ([0098] discloses: different dioptric powers/functions of regions), overlap over an overlap portion (Figure 2 depicts: 212, 214 and 216 regions are nested inside each other and the larger lens frame of area 210 and 230; therefore considered spatial overlap), wherein over said overlap portion, the optical power changes continuously from the dioptric function of one zone to the dioptric function of the other zone ([0099] discloses: continuous optical power change with add power region; [0098] discloses: optical power region ranges, when activated).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jamali et al. (US 11,567,326, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the active programmable lens comprises a second zone ([0097] discloses: 212, region; considered the second zone) configured to provide to the wearer, in standard wearing conditions, a correction of said at least one eye based on said prescription ([0045] discloses: lens configured to change optical power to correct for a far, intermediate or near vision correction needs of a wearer; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions), according to a second adjustable dioptric function ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; [0106] discloses: predetermined voltages corresponding to electrodes based on correction values and driving lenses; Examiner notes that the prior art fine tunes each segment of the pattern electrode with the desired electrical power coupled to the different corrections and regions; [0012] discloses: a plurality of adjustable regions), the second adjustable function is depending on said prescription and on vision distance data ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision),
wherein the first zone and the second zone are adjacent and arranged vertically one above the other or horizontally one next to the other, or diagonally one with respect to the other (Figure 2 depicts: zones as arranged: vertically, horizontally and diagonally with respect to the other, the zones are ellipses), with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens (Figure 2 depicts: different zones with respect to the field of view of the lens: 216, 214, 212, and 210, zones), and
wherein the optical power controller ([0107] discloses: a controller and a power source) is configured to control the second adjustable dioptric function according to an optical power state based on the provided second vision distance data ([0098] discloses: application can activate all of the regions simultaneously; considered means for controlling the second function that controls the second region via electric potential, see [0097-0098]).
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance between a second object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said object, said second distance being different from the first distance, said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said second zone. Gupta and Jamali are related because both disclose optical systems.
Jamali teaches a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry (in at least abstract discloses: a first optical element portion and an second optical element portion, configured to focus their light respectively; Examiner notes that the eye tracking controller and determinization of vergence distance is the data providing means) is configured to provide second vision distance data (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: image light from second portion of electronics display, the near virtual object at a second image plane) corresponding to a second distance (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: second image plane; therefore considered to be a second distance) between a second object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: near virtual object at a second image plane of the lens system) and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said object (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: second image plane covers a lower portion of the FOV of the NED), said second distance being different from the first distance (Examiner notes that he location of the image planes are different therefore the distances are considered to be different), said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens (image light associated with lower portion of FOV, see Col. 11 lines 49-65), defined by said second zone (second image plane and lower portion of FOV, considered the second zone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Jamali and provide a device wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance between a second object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said object, said second distance being different from the first distance, said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said second zone. Doing so would allow for controlling optical power of different portions simultaneously thereby improving the overall functionality and visions correction of the optical system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yadin et al. (US 2015/0277151, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry ([0123] discloses: range finder) is configured to provide vision distance data corresponding to respective distances d.sub.i,j between said first object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on),
and wherein the optical power controller is configured to control the respective adjustable dioptric functions of the zones z.sub.i,j of the active programmable lens according to an optical power state based on the provided vision distance data d.sub.i,j ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision).
Gupta fails to disclose an optical device wherein the active programmable lens comprises n×m zones having respective adjustable dioptric functions, n and m being integers strictly greater than 1, and 1≤i≤n and 1≤j≤m the active programmable lens being divided according to a grid having n lines comprising each m adjacent zones arranged horizontally with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens, and the active programmable lens and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction defined by said first object and a corresponding zone z.sub.i,j in said grid of the active programmable lens, said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said zone z.sub.i,j. Gupta and Yadin are related because both disclose programable lenses.
Yadin teaches an optical device (Figure 3D) wherein the active programmable lens comprises n×m zones ([0033] teaches: electrically-tunable lenses with a pixel grid; [0033] teaches: pixels arranges ins matrix with N rows and M columns) having respective adjustable dioptric functions ([0009] teaches: control circuity configured to apply voltage waveforms to the electrodes so the device functions as a cylindrical lens having focal properties determined by the phase modulation profile; [0052] teaches: respective optical powers may increase or decrease to accommodate the distance at which the eye is attempting to focus),
n and m being integers strictly greater than 1, and 1≤i≤n and 1≤j≤m ([0033] teaches: an array of at least 400 x 400 pixels)
the active programmable lens being divided according to a grid having n lines comprising each m adjacent zones arranged horizontally with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens (Figure 3D depicts: pixel grid; [0022] teaches: active areas of electro-optical layer of pixel grid),
and the active programmable lens and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction defined by said first object (Gupta: [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on; [0052] teaches: respective optical powers may increase or decrease to accommodate the distance at which the eye is attempting to focus; modified with the pixel grid of Yadin and each distance d.sub.i,j) and a corresponding zone z.sub.i,j in said grid of the active programmable lens (Examiner notes that each corresponding pixel zone represents a corresponding location of the grid), said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said zone z.sub.i,j (Examiner notes that the grid of Yadin defines the zone and the active field of view of the lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Yadin and provide an optical device wherein the active programmable lens comprises n×m zones having respective adjustable dioptric functions, n and m being integers strictly greater than 1, and 1≤i≤n and 1≤j≤m the active programmable lens being divided according to a grid having n lines comprising each m adjacent zones arranged horizontally with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens, and the active programmable lens and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction defined by said first object and a corresponding zone z.sub.i,j in said grid of the active programmable lens, said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said zone z.sub.i,j. Doing so would allow for spatial varying optical correction across different portions of the lens based on corresponding distance information thereby improving vision correction and overall performance of the optical system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yadin et al. (US 2015/0277151, of record) in view of Jamali et al. (US 11,567,326, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1,
wherein the vision distance data providing circuitry ([0123] discloses: range finder) is configured to provide vision distance data corresponding to respective distances d.sub.i,j between an object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on) and the active programmable lens and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction defined by said object ([0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on; [0052] teaches: respective optical powers may increase or decrease to accommodate the distance at which the eye is attempting to focus; modified with the pixel grid of Yadin and each distance d.sub.i,j)
wherein the optical power controller is configured to control the respective adjustable dioptric functions of the zones z.sub.i,j of the active programmable lens according to an optical power state based on the provided vision distance data d.sub.i,j ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision).
Gupta fails to discloses a device wherein the active programmable lens comprises n×m zones having respective adjustable dioptric functions, n and m being integers strictly greater than 1, and 1≤i≤n and 1≤j≤n the active programmable lens being divided according to a grid having n lines comprising each m adjacent zones arranged horizontally with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens, and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction and a corresponding zone z.sub.i,j in said grid of the active programmable lens, said distance d being different from the first distance, said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said zone z.sub.i,j. Gupta and Yadin are related because both disclose programable lenses.
Yadin teaches a device wherein the active programmable lens comprises n×m zones ([0033] teaches: electrically-tunable lenses with a pixel grid; [0033] teaches: pixels arranges ins matrix with N rows and M columns) having respective adjustable dioptric functions ([0009] teaches: control circuity configured to apply voltage waveforms to the electrodes so the device functions as a cylindrical lens having focal properties determined by the phase modulation profile; [0052] teaches: respective optical powers may increase or decrease to accommodate the distance at which the eye is attempting to focus),
n and m being integers strictly greater than 1, and 1≤i≤n and 1≤j≤n (Yadin: [0033] teaches: an array of at least 400 x 400 pixels)
the active programmable lens being divided according to a grid having n lines comprising each m adjacent zones arranged horizontally with respect to the field of view of the active programmable lens (Figure 3D depicts: pixel grid; [0022] teaches: active areas of electro-optical layer of pixel grid), and each distance d.sub.i,j being taken according to a direction and a corresponding zone z.sub.i,j in said grid of the active programmable lens (Examiner notes that each corresponding pixel zone represents a corresponding location of the grid)
said object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said zone z.sub.i,j (Yadin: Examiner notes that the grid of Yadin defines the zone and the active field of view of the lens).
The modified Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the operation are performed on a second object, and wherein the said distance d being different from the first distance [distance of object one and object two]. Gupta and Jamali are related because both disclose optical systems.
Jamali teaches a device wherein the vision distance data providing means (in at least abstract discloses: a first optical element portion and an second optical element portion, configured to focus their light respectively; Examiner notes that the eye tracking controller and determinization of vergence distance is the data providing means) is configured to provide second vision distance data (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: image light from second portion of electronics display, the near virtual object at a second image plane) corresponding to a second distance (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: second image plane; therefore considered to be a second distance) between a second object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: near virtual object at a second image plane of the lens system) and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said object (Col. 11 lines 49-65 teach: second image plane covers a lower portion of the FOV of the NED), said second distance being different from the first distance (Examiner notes that he location of the image planes are different therefore the distances are considered to be different), said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens (image light associated with lower portion of FOV, see Col. 11 lines 49-65), defined by said second zone (second image plane and lower portion of FOV, considered the second zone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Jamali and provide a device wherein the vision distance data providing means is configured to provide second vision distance data corresponding to a second distance between a second object in the environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens and said second distance being taken according to a direction defined by said zone of the active programmable lens and said object, said second distance being different from the first distance, said second object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said second zone. Doing so would allow for controlling optical power of different portions simultaneously thereby improving the overall functionality and visions correction of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Piosenka et al. (US 5,259,444, of record).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 7.
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the power addition is obtained by an eye care practitioner or said power addition are obtained based on a calibration method achieved by the wearer. Gupta and Piosenka are related because both disclose optical devices.
Piosenka teaches a device wherein said power addition are obtained based on a calibration method achieved by the wearer (Claim 6 teaches: eyeglasses further include a memory and external calibration apparatus in accordance with signals by the wearer of the eyeglasses; therefore considered powers obtained by calibration method achieved by the wearer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Piosenka and provide a device wherein said power addition are obtained based on a calibration method achieved by the wearer. Doing so would allow for better visual response and adjustment input thereby improving the overall correction and functionality of the optical system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Karafin (US 2020/0174277, of record).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 1.
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein, the optical power of any of the zone of the active programmable lens, through which a given object is seen by the wearer, is defined by the following equation:
D
x
=
D
a
-
1
a
+
1
x
wherein x is the distance between the given object and the vision distance providing circuitry, wherein a corresponds to the distance for which refractivity is acquired, and wherein Da is a prescribed power for the distance at which the refractivity is acquired. Gupta and Karafin are related because both disclose optical systems.
Karafin teaches a device wherein, the optical power of any of the zone of the active programmable lens, through which a given object is seen by the wearer, is defined by the following equation:
D
x
=
D
a
-
1
a
+
1
x
wherein x is the distance between the given object and the vision distance providing circuitry, wherein a corresponds to the distance for which refractivity is acquired, and wherein Da is a prescribed power for the distance at which the refractivity is acquired ([0473] teaches: lens equation used to describe relationship for vision correction between objects, using this a corrective prescriptive function for eyeglasses can be determined; Examiner notes that the equation of the instant app is considered an algebraic rearrangement of the same lens equation relationship, expressed in diopter/vergence form; the same functional relationship of corrective prescriptive glasses adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Karafin and provide the equation to define the parameters of the programable lens. Doing so would allow for calculation of corrective optical power, thereby providing improved performance of the vision based correction system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Morris et al. (US 2015/0241961).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 10.
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the distance sensor and/or a head inclination sensor are configured to perform iterative measurements iteratively, two measurements of a sensor being separated by a predetermined period of time. Gupta and Morris are related because both disclose optical adjusting based on user detection orientation.
Morris teaches a device wherein the distance sensor and/or a head inclination sensor ([0055] teaches: detector for tilt of the operators head) are configured to perform iterative measurements iteratively, two measurements of a sensor being separated by a predetermined period of time (Figure 3 depicts: iterative measurements of orientation of operator, with a predetermined time elapse recheck).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Morris and provide a device wherein the distance sensor and/or the head inclination sensor are configured to perform iterative measurements iteratively, two measurements of a sensor being separated by a predetermined period of time. Doing so would allow for update of data over time, thereby improving the overall functionality and responsiveness of the optical system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460) in view of Morris et al. (US 2015/0241961), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Jin (US 2018/0196266).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Gupta discloses the optical device according to claim 13.
Gupta fails to disclose a device wherein the predetermined period of time is manually or automatically tunable. Gupta and Jin are related because both disclose user data sensing.
Jin teaches a device wherein the predetermined period of time is manually or automatically tunable ([0092] teaches: user sensing at predetermined tune intervals).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Jin and provide a device wherein the predetermined period of time is manually or automatically tunable. Doing so would allow for adjustments due to user conditions or operational needs, thereby improving the overall flexibility and responsiveness of the system.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460, of record) in view of Karafin (US 2020/0174277, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta discloses the optical device for a wearer (Figures 1, 2 and 6), the wearer having a prescription for at least one eye ([0011] discloses: lens capable of creating optical power covering most, if not all optical power prescriptions), the optical device comprising at least:
an active programmable lens ([0011] discloses: programable lens, dynamically changed; [0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface) comprising a first zone (Figure 2 depicts and [0097] discloses: 210, 212, 214, and 216, regions; Examiner notes that region 216 is considered the first zone, moving from the innermost zone to the outermost zone) configured to provide to the wearer, in standard wearing conditions, a correction of said at least one eye based on said prescription ([0045] discloses: lens configured to change optical power to correct for a far, intermediate or near vision correction needs of a wearer; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions), according to a first adjustable dioptric function ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; therefore considered a first adjustable dioptric function) the first adjustable dioptric function depending on said prescription and on vision distance data ([0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections for far, near and intermediate vision),
vision distance data providing circuitry configured to provide first vision distance data corresponding to a first distance between a first object in an environment of the wearer and the active programmable lens ([0123] discloses: range finder, for detecting a distance to which a user is trying to focus; [0125] discloses: sensor may may find a distance from a user to an object the user is focusing on), and an optical power controller ([0107] discloses: a controller and a power source) configured to:
store vision distance data ([0106] discloses: predetermined voltages corresponding to electrodes based on correction values and driving lenses; [0111] discloses: correction of needs of wearer by membrane via predetermined voltages; Examiner notes that this is considered stored and means for storing vision distance data) provided by the vision distance data providing circuitry ([0047] discloses: controller with set of predetermined voltages to the membrane for correcting vision correction needs of a wearer) and at least two predetermined optical power states ([0111] discloses: correcting far, intermediate and near vision correction; therefore considered to be at least two predetermined optical power states), each predetermined optical power state corresponding to an optical power value relative to a range of vision distance ([0111] discloses: correcting far, intermediate and near vision correction, which are corrections of power for range of vision distance), and
control the first adjustable dioptric function of the first zone of the active programmable lens ([0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface), wherein the controlling comprises adjusting the first adjustable dioptric function of the first zone of the active programmable lens according to an optical power state based on the provided first vision distance data ([0048] discloses: adjustment based on need of wearer; [0105] discloses: lens may be dynamic and/or tunable).
Gupta fails to disclose an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said first zone, and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens; and a calibration method comprising: a) acquiring wearing condition data; b) providing a set of distances data; and c) attributing for each distance of the set of distances a predetermined dioptric function. Gupta and Zimanyi are related because both disclose optical devices.
Zimanyi teaches an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens ([0185] teaches: progressive lens simulator, with optical power progressive lens design, in the eye axis direction, by combining distance of viewed object with axial power of progressive lens; [0187] teaches: viewing and gaze distance image points), defined by said first zone ([0116] teaches: vergence of the axis of the two eyes; Examiner notes that the localized viewing area corresponding to the vergence defined eye axis direction and gaze distance image points is analogous to the claimed first zone), and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens ([0184] teaches: simulate gaze distance used for progressive lens simulator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Zimanyi and provide an optical device wherein said first object being in a field of view of the active programmable lens, defined by said first zone, and said first distance being taken according to a direction defined by said first zone of the active programmable lens. Doing so would allow for more accurate lens transition states and dynamic optical power adjustment, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical system
Gupta fails to disclose a calibration method comprising: a) acquiring wearing condition data; b) providing a set of distances data; and c) attributing for each distance of the set of distances a predetermined dioptric function. Gupta and Karafin are related because both disclose optical devices.
Karafin teaches the method comprising ([0407] teaches: calibration of vision correction system):
a) acquiring wearing condition data ([0475] teaches: vision-calibration parameters are stored as a display profile, calibration the content for a specified viewers eyesight);
b) providing a set of distances data ([0477] teaches: calibration system that leverages the results from the vision tests; Examiner notes that the vision tests are considered to include the distance data from the vision test, either in the form of distance or dioptric power); and
c) attributing for each distance of the set of distances a predetermined dioptric function ([0477] teaches: processing the results in real time to provide individualized optical corrections).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Karafin and provide a calibration method comprising: a) acquiring wearing condition data; b) providing a set of distances data; and c) attributing for each distance of the set of distances a predetermined dioptric function. Doing so would allow for individual correction based on dioptric data, thereby improving the overall accuracy and personalization of the optical system.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Gupta discloses the method according to claim 15, further comprising acquiring wearer prescription data ([0112] teaches: remote programmer may fine tune the Rx in the range of the desired corrections).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Gupta discloses the method according to claim 15, further comprising acquiring wearing condition data, prior to providing the set of distances (Karafin: [0486] teaches: other vision calibrations may include color variation; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 15, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460) in view of Karafin (US 2020/0174277), as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Yanari (US 2002/0001063).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Gupta discloses the method according to claim 15.
Gupta fails to disclose a method wherein the attributed predetermined dioptric functions take into consideration the prescription of the wearer. Gupta and Yanari are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Yanari teaches a method wherein the attributed predetermined dioptric functions take into consideration the prescription of the wearer ([0020] teaches: method wherein dioptric power predetermined by the prescription).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Yanari and provide a method wherein the attributed predetermined dioptric functions take into consideration the prescription of the wearer. Doing so would allow for more efficient individualized vision correction, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical system.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2012/0300171, of record) in view of Zimanyi (US 2020/0281460) in view of Karafin (US 2020/0174277), as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Hyde et al. (US 2018/0078360).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Gupta discloses the method according to claim 15.
Gupta fails to disclose a method further comprising style of life data acquiring, wherein style of life of wearer data are acquired. Gupta and Hyde are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hyde teaches disclose a method further comprising a step of style of life data acquiring, wherein style of life of wearer data are acquired ([0077] teaches: to calibrate, various activities, such as walking, sitting, driving etc., therefore considered style of life of the wearer data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Hyde and provide a method further comprising a step of style of life data acquiring, wherein style of life of wearer data are acquired. Doing so would allow for personalized calibration of the optical lenses, thereby improving the overall functionality and suitability of the optical system.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Gupta discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the method is performed by a wearer and comprises:
providing, wherein a first optical power is provided to a zone of the active programmable lens within which the object is sharply viewed by the wearer at the initial distance/position defined during the positioning (Figure 2 depicts and [0097] discloses: 210, 212, 214, and 216, regions; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions; [0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; [0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface); and a second optical power provided to said zone (Gupta: Figure 2 depicts and [0097] discloses: 210, 212, 214, and 216, regions; [0097] discloses: different segments of patterned electrode programable to provide different electrical power to different regions; [0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections; [0012] discloses: adjustment of optical power by active deformation of a lens surface); and modifies the first optical power provided to a second optical power and adjusting the initial distance from the object to a second distance to sharply see the object with the second objective power (Gupta: [0012] discloses: plurality of adjustable regions of optical power by active deformation; [0112] discloses: fine tune the Rx in the range of desired corrections). Gupta and Hyde are related because both disclose optical systems.
Gupta fails to disclose a method with a positioning step, wherein an object is positioned at a given initial distance/position in front of the active programmable lens, adjusting, wherein the wearer modifies the given initial distance/position to a second distance/position of the object and adjust the first optical power to a second optical power to sharply see the object at the second distance/position; and validating this association of the second optical power with the second distance/position.
Hyde teaches a method with positioning, wherein an object is positioned at a given initial distance/position in front of the active programmable lens (Hyde: [0035] teaches: first object that is positioned at a first distance from the subject in order to correct visual deficiencies of the subject eyes);
reiterating, wherein the wearer is asked to adjust the correspondence between a second distance/position of the object and the active programmable lens (Hyde: [0037] teaches: subject focuses on another object, a second object positioned at a second distance and closer to the subject than the first distance),
adjusting, wherein the wearer modifies the given initial distance/position to a second distance/position of the object and adjust the first optical power to a second optical power to sharply see the object at the second distance/position, (Hyde: [0037] teaches: subject focuses on another object, a second object positioned at a second distance and closer to the subject than the first distance). Gupta and Karafin are related because both disclose optical systems.
Karafin teaches a method with a validating this association of the second optical power with the second distance/position ([0477] teaches: processing calibration results to provide individualized optical corrections, thereby validating the selected optical correction for the corresponding viewing/distance position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Hyde and Karafin and provide a method with a positioning step, wherein an object is positioned at a given initial distance/position in front of the active programmable lens, adjusting, wherein the wearer modifies the given initial distance/position to a second distance/position of the object and adjust the first optical power to a second optical power to sharply see the object at the second distance/position; and validating this association of the second optical power with the second distance/position. Doing so would allow for the lens to associate optical powers with corresponding viewing distances/positions for the wearer, thereby improving individualized calibration and accuracy of the optical system.
Compact Prosecution
To potentially overcome the rejection of record Examiner recommends to amend the independent claims to more clearly define ,the system’s ability to store a specific wearer's prescription for real-time operation, as discussed in Applicants arguments, if supported by the specification.
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights