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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tuan et al. (US 20180017814 of record, hereafter Tuan).
Regarding to claim 1, Tuan discloses an electronic contact lens to treat myopia of an eye having a retina (contact lens 110, Fig. 1; Abstract; para.[0022]), comprising:
a plurality of light sources (image source of femtoprojector array 120B, Fig.1, para. [0022]; image source comprising LED, para. [0015]); and
a plurality of projection optics coupled to the plurality of light sources to project a plurality of images on an outer region of the retina to decrease a progression of myopia of the eye (optical system of femtoprojector array 120B, Fig. 1, para. [0022]; lenses and/or mirrors, para.[0015]) to project a plurality of light spots on an outer region (peripheral 154)(Fig.1) of the retina decrease a progression of myopia of the eye (Fig.1, para.[0026]; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Tuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Tuan further discloses wherein said lens is configured to reverse myopia (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Tuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Tuan further discloses wherein said plurality of projection optics is arranged to project the plurality of images from the plurality of light sources at a plurality of outer regions of the retina of the eye with an eccentricity within a range from 15 degrees to 30 degrees with respect to a fovea of the eye (Fig.1, par. [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Tuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Tuan further discloses wherein each of said plurality of projection optics is arranged to project an image myopically defocused with respect to a retinal surface (para.[0022]), wherein an amount of said defocus is within a range from 2.0D to 5.0D (para.[0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Tuan teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Tuan further discloses wherein the plurality of images comprises a plurality of defocused images on the outer region of the retina and wherein said plurality of projection optics is optically coupled to said plurality of light sources to project the plurality of images to a focus anterior to a surface of the retina to form the plurality of defocused images on the plurality of outer regions of the retina (par.[0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Tuan teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 6, Tuan further discloses wherein each of the plurality of projection optics comprises one or more of a mirror, a lens, a diffractive element, a Fresnel lens, a compound Gabor lens, a lightguide, or a wave guide (lenses, para.[0015]).
Regarding to claim 19, Tuan discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Tuan further disclose wherein said plurality of light sources comprises from 4 to 8 micro-displays (i.e., display chips; para.[0015], fig.2), disposed evenly along an arc of said lens, each being displaced equally from an optical center of said lens (see figure 2)(array 120B)(para.[0025]).
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 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.
1. Claims 5, 7, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan et al, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 1 with said six projection optics (120B)(Fig.2) located around the center of the contact lens (see figure 2), but fails to specifically teach wherein each of said plurality of projection optics is located 1.5 mm to 5.0 mm from a center of said contact lens. Tuan et al. teaches the femtoprojectors located around from the center of the contact lens (Fig. 2, para.[0022], [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the device of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed through routine experimentation to provide the desired myopia control and field of vision.
Regarding claim 7, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 6. While Tuan et al. fails to specifically teach wherein each of said plurality of light sources has a maximum distance across not exceeding 26 microns. Tuan et al. teaches the LEDs being significantly smaller than the contact lens (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed through routine experimentation to provide a desired fit and the smallest practical components.
Regarding claim 10, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 8. While Tuan et al. fails to specifically teach wherein each of the plurality of image forming optic has a maximum distance across within a range from 1.5 mm to 200 microns. Tuan et al. teaches the lenses being significantly smaller than the contact lens (Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed through routine experimentation to provide a desired fit and the smallest practical components.
Regarding claim 12, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 8. While Tuan et al. fails to specifically teach wherein each of the plurality of projection optics comprises a combination of convex and concave mirrors. Tuan et al. teaches the optical system includes multiple lenses and/or mirrors that focus light from the image source onto the retina (para. [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the device of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed through routine experimentation to provide the desired myopia control.
Regarding claim 18, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 8, wherein said projection optic comprises an image forming optic to create an image anterior to an outer portion of the retina (Fig. 1, 5, par.[0022]), to create the image with eccentricity no more than 30 degrees (Fig. 1, par.[0022]). While Tuan et al. fails to teach a depth of focus of no more than 1.0D, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed through routine experimentation for desired image control.
2. Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan et al., as applied to claim 6 or claim 1 above, in view of Radhakrishnan et al.(US 2004/0237971 of record, hereinafter 'Radha').
Regarding claim 11, Tuan disclosed the electronic contact lens of claim 8. However, Tuan does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of image forming optics is aspheric and corrected for image aberrations. Radha is in same field of endeavor and teaches an apparatus are disclosed for controlling optical aberrations, the invention to provide continuous, useful clear visual images while simultaneously retarding or abating the progression of myopia (Abstract), the apparatus employing conic-section aspheric surfaces (para.[0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed in view of Radha to provide desired correction.
Regarding claim 13, Tuan et al. in view of Radha teach the electronic contact lens of claim 11. Tuan further teaches wherein said each of the plurality of image forming optic forms an image anterior to an outer portion of the retina at an eccentricity within a range from 15 degrees to 30 degrees from a fovea and optionally within a range from 25 degrees to 30 degrees from the fovea (Fig. 1, para.[0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Tuan et al. in view of Radha teach the electronic contact lens of claim 11. Tuan et al. further teaches wherein said each of the plurality of image forming optics creates an image anterior to the retina (para.[0015]). While Tuan et al. fails to teach the image with an image of magnification within a range from 25 to 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan could have been modified as claimed, through routine experimentation, for desired image control.
Regarding claim 15, Tuan et al. discloses the electronic contact lens of claim 6. However, Tuan et al. fails to teach wherein the image anterior to the outer portion of the retina comprises magnitude of modulation transfer function of no less than 0.75 at a spatial frequency of 10 Ip/mm, and no less than 0.40 at a spatial frequency of 50 Ip/mm. Radha is in same field of endeavor and teaches an apparatus for controlling optical aberrations, the invention to provide continuous, useful clear visual images while simultaneously retarding or abating the progression of myopia (Abstract), the image comprising having an MTF as claimed (Fig. 1, para.[00361]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan et al. could have been modified as claimed in view of Radha to provide desired correction.
3. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan et al., as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Thorn et al.(US 2008/0309882 A1 hereinafter Thorn).
Regarding claim 16, Tuan et al. discloses the electronic contact lens of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of projection optics comprises an image forming optic (mirror, para [00151]) [comprising a collimating optic] configured to form the image anterior to the retina (para[0015]). However, Tuan does not teach the optic comprising a collimating optic. Thorn is in same field of endeavor and teaches a system for at least one of preventing myopia and retarding the progression of myopia (Abstract) comprising a contact lens (para.[00321]) and light collimated by a lens 66 (para.[00351]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teaching of Thorn to that the lens of Tuan et al. for controlling retinal location of the image.
Regarding claim 17, Tuan et al. teaches the electronic contact lens of claim 8, wherein said projection optic comprises a single lens (lens, para.[0015]) to function [both as a collimating optic] and an image forming optic (para.[0015]). However, Tuan does not teach the lens to function as a collimating optic. Thorn is in same field of endeavor and teaches a system for at least one of preventing myopia and retarding the progression of myopia (Abstract) comprising a contact lens (para.[0032]) and light collimated by a lens 66 (para.[00351]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the lens of Tuan could have been modified as claimed in view of Thorn to control retinal location of the image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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: (claim 9) wherein each of the plurality of projection optics is coupled to a corresponding light source among the plurality of light sources to form an image anterior to an outer portion of the retina and wherein a modulation transfer function of said image decreases by a minimum of 0.1 units for a defocus of 1.0 diopters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/TUYEN TRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
