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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2024, 9/23/2025, and 6/3/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Serdarevic et al. (US 10,175,490).
Regarding Claim 2, Serdarevic discloses a system (Fig. 3A, 3B, and 4A-4D, Col. 16), comprising:
eyewear comprising a pair of ophthalmic lenses (Col. 13, lines 34-35, V-Vis device can be spectacles, Col. 16, lines 55-65, spectacles lens) each switchable between at least two different optical states (Col. 14, line 63, bi-stable liquid crystals), wherein in a first of the two different optical states, the system reduces a contrast (Col. 12, contrast information for stimulus to improve vision) of images viewed through a first region of at least one of the ophthalmic lenses compared to images viewed through a second region of the at least one ophthalmic lens (Col. 15, lines 38-53, a clear central aperture portion 23 surrounded by a peripheral active optical portion 24) ;
a power supply (Fig. 2, 3A, power source 25, Col. 16, lines 53-67), arranged to provide electrical power to the pair of ophthalmic lenses to switch between the at least two different optical states; and
an electronic controller (Fig. 2, 3A, programmable controller 26, Col. 16, lines 53-67) in communication with the power supply and the ophthalmic lenses and programmed to control delivery of the electrical power from the power supply to each of the ophthalmic lenses.
Regarding Claim 14, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above and further discloses further comprising one or more sensors in communication with the electronic controller, at least one of the sensors being an environmental sensor configured to provide information about a wearer's environment to the electronic controller (Col. 17, lines 52-56, vision improving apertures can be controlled by microphone 35).
Regarding Claim 16, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to vary an optical state of the ophthalmic lenses based on the information from the environmental sensor (Col. 17, lines 52-56, vision improving apertures can be controlled by microphone 35).
Regarding Claim 18, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the ophthalmic lenses are each switchable between more than two different optical states, each optical state corresponding to a different level of contrast reduction of images viewed through the first region of a respective ophthalmic lens (Col. 7, lines 49-56, the bi-stable liquid crystals can be switched between at least six different shapes).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serdarevic et al. (US 10,175,490) in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0209661).
Regarding Claim 3, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein each ophthalmic lens comprises an electro-optic portion that variably scatters light in response to an electrical signal.
However, Yang, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein each ophthalmic lens comprises an electro-optic portion that variably scatters light in response to an electrical signal (Fig. 2, bistable polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer 6,3rd substrate 3, common electrode 31 4th electrode, and pixel electrode 41, scattering state, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0060), for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear of Serdarevic with the wherein each ophthalmic lens comprises an electro-optic portion that variably scatters light in response to an electrical signal, of Yang, for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Regarding Claim 4, Serdarevic in view of Yang discloses as is set forth above and Yang further discloses wherein the electro-optic portion comprises a liquid crystal material dispersed in a polymer (Fig. 2, bistable polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer 6, 3rd substrate 3, common electrode 31 4th electrode, and pixel electrode 41, scattering state, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0060), for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Regarding Claim 5, Serdarevic in view of Yang discloses as is set forth above and Yang further discloses wherein each ophthalmic lens comprises two electrodes and an electro-optic material disposed between the two electrodes (Fig. 2, bistable polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer 6, 3rd substrate 3, common electrode 31 4th electrode, and pixel electrode 41, scattering state, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0060), for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Regarding Claim 6, Serdarevic in view of Yang discloses as is set forth above and Yang further discloses wherein at least one of the two electrodes is a pixelated electrode (Fig. 2, bistable polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer 6, 3rd substrate 3, common electrode 31 4th electrode, and pixel electrode 41, scattering state, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0060), for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Regarding Claim 7, Serdarevic in view of Yang discloses as is set forth above and Yang further discloses wherein the electro-optic portion comprises a layer of electro-optic material arranged between two transparent substrates (Fig. 2, bistable polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer 6, 3rd substrate 3, common electrode 31 4th electrode, and pixel electrode 41, scattering state, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0060), for the purpose of switching a pattern between an opaque and a transparent state.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serdarevic et al. (US 10,175,490) in view of Maltz (US 2018/0260024).
Regarding Claim 10, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose comprising one or more light sources mounted on the eyeglasses and arranged to emit light towards a wearer's eye during operation of the system.
However, Maltz, in the same field of endeavor teaches comprising one or more light sources mounted on the eyeglasses and arranged to emit light towards a wearer's eye during operation of the system (Fig. 2, IR lights producing NIR light, Paragraphs 0057 and 0065), for the purpose of tracking the eyes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear of Serdarevic with the comprising one or more light sources mounted on the eyeglasses and arranged to emit light towards a wearer's eye during operation of the system, of Maltz, for the purpose of tracking the eyes of a user.
Regarding Claim 11, Serdarevic discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose further comprising one or more sensors in communication with the electronic controller, at least one of the sensors being an eye-tracking sensor providing information about movement of a wearer's eye to the electronic controller.
However, Maltz, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising one or more sensors in communication with the electronic controller, at least one of the sensors being an eye-tracking sensor providing information about movement of a wearer's eye to the electronic controller (Fig. 2, position sensor/video camera 118, Paragraphs 0057 and 0065), for the purpose of tracking the eyes of a patient during an eye examination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyewear of Serdarevic with the further comprising one or more sensors in communication with the electronic controller, at least one of the sensors being an eye-tracking sensor providing information about movement of a wearer's eye to the electronic controller, of Maltz, for the purpose of tracking the eyes of a patient during an eye examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein each of the two electrodes is arranged between a respective transparent substrate of the two substrates and the layer of electro-optic material.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising: a first electrode connector tab electrically connected to the power supply and a first electrode of the two electrodes; a second electrode connector tab electrically connected the power supply and a second electrode of the two electrodes; and a wire configured to electrically isolate the first electrode connector tab from the second electrode connector tab.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the electronic controller is programmed to vary an area of at least one ophthalmic lens pair of ophthalmic lenses corresponding to the second region using the information about the movement of the wearer's eye.
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the eyewear comprises a projection display module that directs light to a wearer's eyes, and the system adds light to images viewed through a portion of a respective ophthalmic lens corresponding to the first region using the projection display module.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the environmental sensor is a proximity sensor, and the electronic controller is programmed to vary an optical state of the ophthalmic lenses based on information from the proximity sensor.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the system reduces contrast of images as viewed by a wearer of the eyewear by increasing an amount of scattering of incident light on an area of a respective ophthalmic lens corresponding to the first region.
Specifically, with respect to claim 20, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the system reduces contrast of images by adding light to images viewed through an area of a respective ophthalmic lens corresponding to the first region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blum et al. (US 2009/0204207), Hue et al. (US 2018/0201101), Artal Soriano et al. (US 8,662,664), Artal Soriano et al. (US 2012/0140165), Maiello et al. (US 2016/0212404), Gruhlke et al. (US 2018/0332275), Gefen et al. (US 2015/0182748), Legerton (US 2013/0278887), Brennan et al. (US 2017/0276963), Reedy et al. (US 2020/0038173), Tuan et al. (US 2018/0017814), Wyss et al. (US 2022/0299795), Drobe (US 9,885,884), Rousseau et al. (US 2018/0074322), Zhou et al. (US 2013/0265541), and Chow (US 10,001,660) are cited to show similar systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights