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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are not shown in the Drawings:
Claim 9 (second and third lines after Equation 2): “DA is an angle between the planar antenna and the antenna”.
Therefore, the above feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 7) recites: “an antenna ring forming a shape of a ring as a whole”. The limitation “forming a shape of a ring as a whole” is indefinite. Furthermore, the Specification does not define limits of what is understood to be “a shape of a ring as a whole”. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Figs. 7-8), this limitation is interpreted as follows: “ wherein the antenna includes: an antenna ring” (the rest of the text referring to the antenna ring should be deleted).
Claims 2-12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 7 (lines 1-2) recites: “a contractible distance of the antenna buffer”. It is not clear how the contractible distance of the antenna buffer is defined. In regards with that, the Specification ([0066]) discloses: “As the antenna inner buffer 2130 is contracted, contraction of the antenna ring 2110 can be suppressed or alleviated. A contractible distance of the antenna inner buffer 2130 may be a distance between both ends of the antenna inner buffer 2130.” For examination purposes, in view of the Specification, this limitation is interpreted as follows a contractible distance of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna is a distance between ends of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna.
Claim 7 (lines 2-3) recites: “a difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna.” It is not clear what is the cause of the difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna. In regards with the goal of the invention, the Specification ([0059]) discloses: “Therefore, it is necessary to form a buffer section in the planar antenna 210' to prevent the three-dimensional antenna 210 from being corrugated or folded and overlapped.” Therefore, since the three-dimensional antenna is not being folded and no sections of the antenna overlap, there should be no difference between the outer perimeter of the planar antenna and the outer perimeter of the (three-dimensional) antenna. In both cases, the perimeter (P) equals the sum of the lengths (L1), (L2) and (L3) corresponding to different segments of the antenna and remains the same regardless of whether the antenna has a planar geometry or a three-dimensional geometry (regarding lengths L1, L2, and L3) see annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy et al. (US 20180088351 A1, hereinafter Kennedy) in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 11520168 B2, hereinafter Iwasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Kennedy (Figs. 1A-B) discloses a smart contact lens (110) comprising:
a lens body (120) including a first lens surface (126) in contact with an eye and a second lens surface (124) positioned opposite the first lens surface; and
an antenna (170) disposed between the first lens surface and the second lens surface ([0029] discloses that all components of the smart lens are fully embedded within the lens body 120) and configured to form a closed loop (the body of the loop antenna 170, the interconnects 151, and the controller 150, which are all part of the antenna, form a closed loop),
wherein the antenna includes an antenna ring (170) forming a shape of a ring as a whole.
Kennedy does not disclose an antenna buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring in a diameter direction of the antenna ring.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki (Fig. 2) teaches a smart contact lens (1) comprising an antenna (20), wherein the antenna includes an antenna buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring in a diameter direction of the antenna ring (regarding the antenna buffer and the antenna ring, see annotated Fig. 2 in Iwasaki below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that the antenna comprises an antenna buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring in a diameter direction of the antenna ring as taught by Iwasaki. This modification would provide an increase in field intensity in the electric field communication (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 28-38). In addition, this modification provides an antenna with improved communication sensitivity and communication speed (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 39-52).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna buffer includes at least one of:
an antenna outer buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring toward an outside of the antenna ring in the diameter direction of the antenna ring; and
an antenna inner buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring toward an inside of the antenna ring in the diameter direction of the antenna ring.
Iwasaki (Fig. 2) teaches a plurality of antenna outer buffers bent and extended from the antenna ring toward an outside of the antenna ring in the diameter direction of the antenna ring (regarding the antenna outer buffer and the antenna ring, see annotated Fig. 2 in Iwasaki above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that the antenna buffer includes at least one of an antenna outer buffer bent and extended from the antenna ring toward an outside of the antenna ring in the diameter direction of the antenna ring as taught by Iwasaki. This modification would provide an antenna with increased field intensity in the electric field communication (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 28-38). In addition, this modification provides an antenna with improved communication sensitivity and communication speed (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 39-52).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna buffer includes: an antenna buffer connector bent and extended in the diameter direction of the antenna ring; and an antenna buffer stand connected to the antenna buffer connector.
Iwasaki (Fig. 2) teaches the antenna buffer includes: an antenna buffer connector bent and extended in the diameter direction of the antenna ring; and an antenna buffer stand connected to the antenna buffer connector (regarding the antenna buffer, the antenna ring, the antenna buffer connector, and the antenna buffer stand, see annotated Fig. 2 in Iwasaki above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that the antenna buffer includes: an antenna buffer connector bent and extended in the diameter direction of the antenna ring; and an antenna buffer stand connected to the antenna buffer connector as taught by Iwasaki. This modification would provide an antenna with increased field intensity in the electric field communication (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 28-38). In addition, this modification provides an antenna with improved communication sensitivity and communication speed (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 39-52).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna buffer connector includes a pair of antenna buffer connectors, and wherein the antenna buffer stand connects the pair of antenna buffer connectors.
Iwasaki (Fig. 2) teaches the antenna buffer connector includes a pair of antenna buffer connectors, and wherein the antenna buffer stand connects the pair of antenna buffer connectors (regarding the antenna buffer, the pair of antenna buffer connectors, and the antenna buffer stand, see annotated Fig. 2 in Iwasaki above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that the antenna buffer connector includes a pair of antenna buffer connectors, and wherein the antenna buffer stand connects the pair of antenna buffer connectors as taught by Iwasaki. This modification would provide an antenna with increased field intensity in the electric field communication (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 28-38). In addition, this modification provides an antenna with improved communication sensitivity and communication speed (see Iwasaki, col. 7, lines 39-52).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 1 as addressed above.
Kennedy (Figs. 1A-B) further teaches a sensor (160) and a chip (150) disposed between the first lens surface (126) and the second lens surface (124) and connected to the antenna (170).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 10 as addressed above.
Kennedy (Figs. 1A-B) further teaches the antenna (170) receives a power from an outside (inherent) and transfers the power to the chip (150; [0035], lines 2-4, discloses: “The controller 150 can be a chip including logic elements configured to receive power from the loop antenna 170”).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 10 as addressed above.
Kennedy (Figs. 1A-B) further teaches the sensor (160) includes a strain sensor ([0036] discloses: “The sensor 160 could include a variety of components configured to detect one or more physical variables of interest … Such sensors could include … strain gauges”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kennedy as applied to claim 1 in view of Ung et al. (KR 20180053894 A, hereinafter Ung).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the antenna is formed by applying a pressure to a planar antenna formed on a plane and forms an angle with the planar antenna, and wherein the planar antenna includes the antenna ring and the antenna buffer.
Ung (Figs. 1a-1i) teaches a contact lens antenna (120) comprising antenna ring (antenna coil) is formed by applying a pressure (Fig. 1h) to a planar antenna formed on a plane and forms an angle with the planar antenna, and wherein the planar antenna includes the antenna ring and all of the elements of the contact lens antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that the antenna is formed by applying a pressure to a planar antenna formed on a plane and forms an angle with the planar antenna, and wherein the planar antenna includes the antenna ring and the antenna buffer as taught by Ung. This modification would provide the necessary shape of the smart contact lens so that it fits appropriately to a human eye.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 5 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the limitation wherein in a process of forming the antenna by applying the pressure to the planar antenna, a compression force is applied to the planar antenna, and wherein, based on the compression force being applied to the planar antenna, the antenna buffer of the planar antenna is contracted.
Ung (Figs. 1a-1i) teaches in a process of forming a contact lens antenna (120) by applying the pressure to the planar antenna, a compression force is applied to the planar antenna (Fig. 1h). Further, the Specification of the current invention ([0066]) discloses: “A contractible distance of the antenna inner buffer 2130 may be a distance between both ends of the antenna inner buffer 2130.” It is well-known in the art that when a planar object is being deformed so as to fit a curved geometry the distance between different points of the planar object decreases – i.e., contracts. Therefore, in view of the definition of contractable distance of the antenna buffer per the Specification, the antenna buffer of the planar antenna would be contracted when a compression force is being applied to the planar antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that in a process of forming the antenna by applying the pressure to the planar antenna, a compression force is applied to the planar antenna, and wherein, based on the compression force being applied to the planar antenna, the antenna buffer of the planar antenna is contracted. This modification would provide the necessary shape of the smart contact lens so that it fits appropriately to a human eye.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kennedy teaches the smart contact lens of claim 5 as addressed above.
The modified Kennedy does not teach the limitation wherein a contractible distance of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna is greater than a difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna.
Iwasaki (Fig. 2), as best understood, teaches a contractible distance of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna (regarding the contractable distance, see annotated Fig. 2 in Iwasaki above). Further, Ung (Figs. 1a-1i) teaches a process of forming a contact lens antenna (120) by applying pressure to a planar antenna. One skilled in the art would recognize that when forming the antenna, unless the antenna is made of a material that stretches or shrinks under pressure, or portions of the antenna are folded onto each other, there will be no difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna (See the comments regarding the 112 rejection of claim 7 above). Thus, a contractible distance of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna would be greater than a difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennedy so that a contractible distance of the antenna buffer of the planar antenna is greater than a difference between an outer perimeter of the planar antenna and an outer perimeter of the antenna. This modification would ensure that the antenna is not deformed so as to have overlapping portions, which may degrade the antenna performance. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights