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 statements (IDS) submitted on 1/18/2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record) in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), and further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record) discloses an electronic charger for electronic spectacles comprising:
an electrical connector (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, charging connector 467, Paragraph 0058) configured to couple to a corresponding connector on the electronic spectacles (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 9, pair of glasses 909, Paragraphs 0058-0059)
an electronic control system (Paragraph 0048);
an electrical charging system (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, charging connector 467 connected to battery 409, Paragraph 0058) configured to charge an energy storage device in the spectacles.
Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record) does not specifically disclose
a communication system configured to operatively couple the electronic control system to the electronic spectacles in electronic data communication;
wherein the electronic control system is configured to determine patient compliance based on spectacle usage data and spectacle stimulation configuration data.
However, Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a communication system configured to operatively couple the electronic control system to the electronic spectacles in electronic data communication (Fig. 8, Paragraph 0053, lines 1-24, signals can pass from circuit board 802 to the display 308 via magnetic fasteners 502(1) and 502(2)), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device.
Additionally, Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record), also in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the electronic control system is configured to determine patient compliance based on spectacle usage data and spectacle stimulation configuration data (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-20, a sensor can sense when eyewear is being worn and determine compliance with a therapy protocol, the therapy protocol being the stimulation configuration, Paragraph 0018), for the purpose of improving patient outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic charger for electronic spectacles of Steger with a communication system configured to operatively couple the electronic control system to the electronic spectacles in electronic data communication; of Bristol and the
wherein the electronic control system is configured to determine patient compliance based on spectacle usage data and spectacle stimulation configuration data of Sweis, for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 2, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the electronic control system further comprises a programming interface for receiving the spectacle stimulation configuration data (Paragraph 0050, lines 1-16, Fig. 7, external controller 700), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 3, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the programming interface receives the spectacle stimulation configuration data from a remote device (Paragraph 0050, lines 1-16, Fig. 7, external controller 700), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 4, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record) further discloses wherein the remote device comprises a mobile device, remote server, or medical professional computer (Paragraph 0022, lines 7-14), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 5, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record) further discloses wherein the programming interface for receiving the spectacle stimulation configuration data comprises a physical interface (Fig. 8, Paragraph 0053, lines 1-24, signals can pass from circuit board 802 to the display 308 via magnetic fasteners 502(1) and 502(2)), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 6, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the physical interface comprises a plurality of switches (Paragraph 0032, lines 10-19, Fig. 1, switches 130), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 8, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to provide compliance information based on the determined patient compliance (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-20, a sensor can sense when eyewear is being worn and determine compliance with a therapy protocol, the therapy protocol being the stimulation configuration, Paragraph 0018), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 9, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to receive spectacle usage data from the spectacles via the communication system (Paragraph 0056, lines 16-20, the retrieval of data can be either via electronic connector or via a wireless connection), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 11, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the communication system comprises communication circuitry and an antenna (Fig. 2, wireless communication 260 and antenna 262, Paragraph 0040), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 12, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) further discloses wherein the communication system is configured to transmit or receive compliance data, energy storage status data, spectacle usage data, or operational data of the electronic charger or spectacles (Paragraph 0038, the controller 230 interfaces to share monitored operational information, Paragraph 0040), for the purpose of exchanging data between a processor in a base and the electronics within an eyewear device, in order to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 13, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above and Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record) further discloses wherein the energy storage device comprises a battery or capacitor (Fig. 2, battery 419, Paragraph 0050 and Paragraph 0061).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record) in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record), further in view of Herzog et al. (US 2008/0062338).
Regarding Claim 7, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the electronic control system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the determined patient compliance.
However, Herzog, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the determined patient compliance (Paragraph 0188, lines 4-9), for the purpose of easily and conveniently determining compliance by a patient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic charger for electronic spectacles of Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) with wherein the electronic control system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the determined patient compliance, of Herzog, for the purpose of easily and conveniently determining compliance by a patient.
Regarding Claim 10, Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the communication system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the spectacle usage data.
However, Herzog, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the communication system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the spectacle usage data (Paragraph 0188, lines 4-9), for the purpose of easily and conveniently determining compliance by a patient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic charger for electronic spectacles of Steger et al. (US 2018/0090958, of record), in view of Bristol et al. (US 2022/0231523, of record), further in view of Sweis et al. (US 2013/0072828, of record) with wherein the communication system is configured to illuminate a compliance indicator based on the spectacle usage data, of Herzog, for the purpose of easily and conveniently determining compliance by a patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ben-Ezra et al. (US 2014/0336723) is cited to show similar eyewear.
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