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
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1, 9 and 17
Cancelled: None
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-24 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 2018/0088323 A1, hereinafter “Bao”) in view of Weston et al. (US 2020/0349249 A1, hereinafter “Weston”).
As to claim 9, Bao (Fig. 1B) discloses an electronic device (100) comprising:
one or more displays (112);
one or more controllable tinting layers (Fig. 2A element 220);
a memory (Para. 0061);
one or more input devices including an optical sensor (104; Para. 0061);
one or more processors (Para. 0061); and
one or more programs stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 5; Para. 0064), the one or more programs including instructions for:
applying a first tinting level to the one or more displays (Fig. 2A element 210; Para. 0047-0048, opaque state);
while applying the first tinting level to the one or more displays, determining that one or more criteria are satisfied (Para. 0049);
in response to determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied including a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects a change in a body pose corresponding to reducing an amount of light incident on one or more eyes of a user (Para. 0103, 0105-0106, combination of movement sensor and ambient light sensor would meet the claimed limitation).
Bao does not disclose applying a second tinting level, greater than the first tinting level, to the one or more displays.
However, Weston teaches applying a second tinting level, greater than the first tinting level, to the one or more displays (Para. 0232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Weston to include reactive lens in the device disclosed by Bao. The motivation would have been to adapt the degree of reflectance/tint based on the detected size of pupils, squinting, brightness of the environment, and the like (Weston; Para. 0232).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 1 and the corresponding media of claim 17.
As to claim 10, Bao (Fig. 11) discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein detecting the change in the body pose includes at least one of:
detecting a movement of one or more extremities (Para. 0119-0120);
detecting a movement of one or more eyes (Fig. 13);
detecting a movement of a head; or
detecting the change in the body pose for an amount of time greater than a threshold amount of time.
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 2 and the corresponding media of claim 18.
As to claim 11, Bao discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects at least one of:
a movement of the electronic device greater than a threshold amount of movement (Para. 0131); or
a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects a movement of the electronic device greater than a threshold amount of movement away from a light source.
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 3 and the corresponding media of claim 19.
As to claim 13, Bao discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the electronic device is further in communication with one or more displays, and wherein the second tinting level is applied to the one or more controllable tinting layers without changing a presentation of virtual content on the one or more displays (Para. 0103, adjusting based on ambient light).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 5 and the corresponding media of claim 21.
As to claim 14, Bao (Fig. 12) discloses The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the electronic device is further in communication with one or more displays (1220), and wherein the second tinting level is applied to the one or more controllable tinting layers while changing a presentation of virtual content on the one or more displays (1222; Para. 0123).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 6 and the corresponding media of claim 22.
As to claim 15, Bao discloses the electronic device of claim 9, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
determining that one or more second criteria are satisfied including a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects a movement of one or more eyes that satisfies the one or more criteria without detecting a contextual change of an ambient light condition (Para. 0106); and
in response to determining that the one or more second criteria are satisfied:
presenting a visual indication on one or more displays in communication with the electronic device (Fig. 12 element 2116; Para. 0106, change of opacity).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 7 and the corresponding media of claim 23.
As to claim 16, Bao discloses the electronic device of claim 9, the one or more programs further including instructions for:
while applying the second tinting level to the one or more controllable tinting layers, determining that one or more third criteria are satisfied (Para. 0110); and
in response to determining that the one or more third criteria are satisfied, applying a third tinting level to the one or more controllable tinting layers (Para. 0110).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 8 and the corresponding media of claim 24.
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao and Weston as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Tam (US 2017/0047046 A1, hereinafter “Tam”).
As to claim 12, Bao discloses the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the optical sensor is an inward facing camera (Fig. 13 element 216; Para. 0126).
Bao does not disclose the one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects an illumination of an eye greater than a threshold level of illumination.
However, Tam teaches the one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the electronic device detects an illumination of an eye greater than a threshold level of illumination (Fig. 4; Para. 0040-0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Tam to adjust the display based on the illumination of eye in the device disclosed by Bao/Weston. The motivation would have been to improve the viewing conditions (Tam; Para. 0019).
The above rejection also stands for the corresponding method of claim 4 and the corresponding media of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Venkatasubramanya et al. (US 2025/0217090 A1) discloses adjusting transmission of display surface (Fig. 3).
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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights