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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of independent claims 19 and 20, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
With respect to claim 19, the closest prior art Chapiro (PGPUB 20180217401), Ishak et al. (PGPUB 20080186448) and/or Casper et al. (USPAT 7748845), fails to disclose in combination with all of the other elements of the claim wherein if the activity is to be performed during nighttime hours under ambient lighting conditions between 100 lux to 1000 lux then the lenses of the selected eyewear device are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers to 490 nanometers is between 25 percent to 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses, and if the activity is to be performed during nighttime hours under ambient lighting conditions between
1000 lux to 10000 lux or greater than the lenses of the selected eyewear device are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers to 490 nanometers is less than 15 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses.
With respect to claim 20, the closest prior art Chapiro, Ishak and/or Casper, fails to disclose in combination with all of the other elements of the claim the eyewear device are configured with a gradient profile wherein the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers to 490 nanometers is between 25 percent to 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses at a location in the lower portion of the lenses, and the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers to 490 nanometers is less than 15 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses at a location in the upper portion of the lenses.
Claims 2-18 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (PGPUB 20180217401) in view of Ishak et al. (PGPUB 20080186448) and further in view of Casper et al. (USPAT 7748845).
Regarding claim 1, Chapiro discloses a method of improving human circadian health and protecting the eyes from high-energy visible blue light comprising:
providing one or more daytime eyewear devices and one or more nighttime eyewear devices (Abst. ), each eyewear device of the one or more daytime eyewear devices and the one or more nighttime eyewear devices having lenses (Fig. 3), selecting and then positioning one of the daytime eyewear devices or one of the nighttime eyewear devices proximally to the eyes of a person in such a way that the lenses of the selected daytime eyewear device or the selected nighttime eyewear device substantially filters light received by the eyes of the person (Fig. 1), and the person performing one or more activities using their sense of vision, wherein, one of the daytime eyewear devices is selected when the activities are performed substantially during normal daytime hours ([0005]), and one of the nighttime eyewear devices is selected when the activities are performed substantially during normal nighttime hours ([0005]).
Chapiro does not disclose wherein the lenses of the daytime eyewear devices are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is between 100 percent to 150 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses, and the mean spectral transmittance of the lenses between 400 nanometers to 430 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses.
However, Ishak teaches a lens for use during the day ([0002]) wherein the lenses of the daytime eyewear devices are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is between 100 percent to 150 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses (See Figures 12-13, 16, 24, 26 and 28), and the mean spectral transmittance of the lenses between 400 nanometers to 430 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses (See Figures 12-13, 16, 24, 26 and 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Chapiro and Ishak such that the daytime mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is between 100 percent to 150 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses, and the mean spectral transmittance of the lenses between 400 nanometers to 430 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses motivated by improving wearer health.
Modified Chapiro does not disclose wherein the lenses of the nighttime eyewear devices are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses.
However, Casper teaches a nighttime lens for maintaining a normal circadian rhythm (Col. 1 lines 16-22) wherein the lenses of the nighttime eyewear devices are configured such that the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Chapiro and Casper such that the nighttime blue light transmission lenses satisfied the mean spectral transmittance between 430 nanometers and 490 nanometers is less than 40 percent relative to the luminous transmittance of the lenses motivated by improving wearer health.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights