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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/2/2025. Currently claims 1-8, 10-14, 16, 19-20, 23-29, 32-37.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 7/2/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claim 37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 7/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 37 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Flinders have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Boyles et al (US 20230204982) as outlined below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles et al (US 20230204982) hereafter known as Boyles.
Claim 37:
Boyles discloses:
A wearable eyewear device [see Figs. 1-2 element 100… and para 31… “Eyewear 100”] comprising
a filtered lens or filtered optic [see Figs. 1 and 2 elements 102 and 240 and para 31… “Eyewear 100 can include a lens 102A, a lens 102B, a mounting frame 112 configured to support the lenses 102A and 102B, and ear stems 106A and 106B attached to mounting frame 112. Eyewear 100 can be of any type, including general-purpose eyewear, special-purpose eyewear, sunglasses” and para 61… “Lens 240 can be an embodiment of lenses 102A and 102B shown in FIG. 1” and para 68… “lens 240 can further include one or more functional layers (not shown in FIG. 2C), such as an optical filter configured to provide optical filtering, a polarizer configured to provide polarization, an electro-chromic layer configured to provide electrochromism, a reflection layer configured to provide a partial reflection of incoming visible light, an absorption layer configured to provide a partial or complete absorption of infrared light, a color enhancement layer, a color alteration layer, an anti-static functional layer, an anti-fog functional layer, a scratch resistance layer, a mechanical durability layer, a hydrophobic functional layer, a reflective functional layer, a darkening functional layer, an aesthetic functional layer including tinting”],
wherein the filtered lens or filtered optic provides a light transmission of 40% or more of ocular photo-bio-stimulation light through and measured within a light wavelength range of 435 nm- 475 nm and the filtered lens or filter optic transmits one or more wavelengths within a wavelength range of 475 nm to 510 to an eye of a wearer of the wearable eyewear device [see Fig. 3A and para 69… “FIG. 3A illustrates an optical transmittance profile 300T, according to some embodiments.” Which show 40% transmission or greater in the wavelength range of 435-475 nm and light being transmitted within the 475-510 nm range],
wherein the filtered lens or filtered optic further provides a visible light transmission (VLT) of less than 30% [see para 54… “a visible light transmission (as defined by EN1836) is from about 10% to about 50%, from about 10% to about 45%, from about 10% to about 40%, from about 10% to about 30%, from about 10% to about 20%, from about 15% to about 35%, from about 15% to about 25%, from about 15% to about 20%, from about 10% to about 15%, from about 20% to about 40%, from about 25% to about 35%, or from about 30% to about 35%”], and
wherein the filtered lens or filtered optic pass one or more color transmission standards / requirements, which permits the wearer when wearing the filtered lens or filtered optic to properly identify colors of traffic signals, including a green traffic signal, a red traffic signal, and a yellow traffic signal [see para 32… “Lenses 102A and 102B have an optical filter that provides chroma enhancement while transmitting a desired amount of light to pass driving tests.” And Fig. 3A which shows transmission of between 15%-90% of light within the wavelength ranges of 570-590 nm (i.e. yellow light), 490-580 nm (i.e. green light) and 620-750 nm (i.e. red light) which show ability to see a certain percentage of green, yellow and red light which together are understood to recite meeting regularity traffic signal test or standard for color transmission as claimed].
However, Boyles only discloses a light transmission of 40% or more between 435 nm- 475 nm which only overlaps 450-510 nm; thus, Boyles fails to fully disclose “wherein the filtered lens or filtered optic provides a light transmission of 40% or more of ocular photo-bio-stimulation light through and measured within a light wavelength range of 480nm +/-30nm”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the filtered lens or filtered optic to have at least a 40% or more transmission rate for a wavelength range of 450-510 (as claimed) because as outlined above Boyles discloses at least 40% visible light transmission rate within, at the very least, the range of 435-475 nm which at the very least overlaps with the claimed range from 450-510 nm; thus, because Boyle’s filtered lens or filtered optic discloses sharing an overlap in range including the endpoint there is a prima facie case of obviousness for one ordinary skill in the art to the claimed range [see MPEP 2144.05 and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 16, 19-20, 23-29, 32-36 are allowed. The reasons for why are outlined in the final rejection mailed on 3/28/2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792