DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Jul. 31, 2026, has been entered and made of record. In view of the Applicant’s amendment for claim 18, the claim objection is expressly withdrawn. In view of the approval of Terminal Disclaimer dated Jul. 31, 2026, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is expressly withdrawn. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated Jul. 31, 2026, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. Please see the following claim rejections for detailed analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1).
As to claim 1, Friedman teaches an electronic device (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “near-eye display 500”), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”);
a tunable lens (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “ocular lens 510”; FIGS. 1A, [0031], “the deformable reflectors 111 and/or 112 may change their radius of curvature”) coupled to the head-mounted support structure (Friedman, see FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”) and configured to change optical power (FIGS. 1A, [0031], “thereby changing their optical power and tuning the overall optical power of the lens 100A”);
an output device coupled to the head-mounted support structure (Friedman, FIG. 6, [0049], “electronic display panel 508”).
Friedman does not teach the output device … “configured to provide output indicating a suggested change in optical power of the tunable lens; an input device configured to gather user input, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power in response to the user input indicating user approval of the suggested change in optical power”.
However, Yadin teaches the concepts of a control device (Yadin, FIGS. 1-2, [0049], “main controller circuit 42”) … configured to provide output indicating a suggested change in optical power of the tunable lens (Yadin, FIG. 6, [0068], “initiate calibration procedure 110” → “display test pattern on screen 112” → “modify modulation pattern of LC lenses 114”);
an input device configured to gather user input (Yadin, FIGS. 1-2, [0049], “microcontroller 64 receives inputs from a user interface circuit 66, which is disposed on one or both temples 26 and senses gestures made by user 21 against the temple, thus enabling the user to change the operating state of electrically tunable lenses 30”), wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power in response to the user input indicating user approval of the suggested change in optical power (Yadin, FIG. 6, [0071], “user approves? 116” → Yes → “set optical power and axis location for reading mode 118”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the step of changing optical power by deforming the “ocular lens 510” taught by Friedman to be further associated with the “calibration & changing optical power step(s) 110 112 114 118” and the “user approval step 116” using the “user interface circuit 66”, as taught by Yadin, so that “the electrically tunable lenses provide a near-vision correction for a user of the spectacles, and the lens controller circuit is configured to turn the near-vision correction on or off in response to the indication from the main controller circuit” (Yadin, [0015]).
As to claim 2, Friedman teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a display (Friedman, FIG. 1A, [0028], “miniature display panel 106”).
As to claim 4, Yadin teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, further comprising:
communication circuitry (Yadin, FIGS. 1-2, [0050], “wireless communication circuitry 68, such as a Bluetooth™ interface”) configured to receive instruction from a paired electronic device (Yadin, see FIGS. 1-2, [0050], “for communication with smartphone 32 and/or other computing devices in order to receive firmware updates and configuration and calibration instructions”),
wherein the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power in response to the instruction (Yadin, FIGS. 1-2 and 6, [0050], “an application running on smartphone 32 may instruct microcontroller 64 to modify the control voltage waveforms that are applied to electrically tunable lenses 30”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Friedman teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a speaker (Friedman, FIG. 6, [0055], “a set of small speakers built into the front body 602”).
As to claim 9, Friedman in view of Yadin teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the input device (Yadin, FIGS. 1-2, [0049], “user interface circuit 66”) comprises a button, a touch sensor (Yadin, FIG. 5, [0065], “multiple proximity sensors 100”), a gaze-tracking sensor (Friedman, FIG. 5, [0050], “eye-tracking cameras 504”), or a microphone. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1) and Ko (US 2018/0136466 A1).
As to claim 3, Friedman in view of Yadin does not explicitly teach the electronic device defined in claim 2, wherein the output comprises an icon or a text notification.
However, Ko teaches the electronic device defined in claim 2, wherein the output comprises an icon (Ko, FIG. 5E, [0122], “display unit 151 outputs a plurality of icons corresponding to a plurality of focal lengths on the changed visual information (S1620)”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the step of changing optical power by deforming the “ocular lens 510” taught by Friedman to be further associated with the “indicator”, as taught by Ko, in order to notify the change to the user.
As to claim 7, Yadin in view of Ko teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device (Ko, FIG. 2A, [0065], “display unit 151”) is further configured to provide output indicating that the tunable lens will be changing optical power (Ko, FIG. 5D, [0117], “outputs an indicator indicating a change of a focal length on the display unit 151 for a preset time (S1610)”) before the tunable lens changes optical power (Yadin, FIG. 6, [0071], “user approves? 116” → Yes). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3.
As to claim 8, Ko teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a haptic output device (Ko, FIGS. 1-2A, [0037], “haptic module 153”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1) and Matsuzawa et al. (US 2017/0328726 A1).
As to claim 6, Friedman in view of Yadin does not explicitly teach the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the output comprises a chime or a voice notification.
However, Matsuzawa teaches the concept that the output comprises a chime or a voice notification (Matsuzawa, FIG. 23, [0201], “output device 917 outputs a result obtained through a process performed by the information processing device 900, in the form of video such as text and an image, sounds such as voice and audio sounds, or vibration”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “miniature display panel 106” and the “set of small speakers built into the front body 602” taught by Friedman to further display the “indicator at step S1610” with the “sounds such as voice and audio sounds”, as taught by Matsuzawa, in order to intuitively notify the changing states to the user.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1) and Sweis et al. (US 2014/0176902 A1).
As to claim 10, Friedman in view of Yadin does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power based on a time of day.
However, Sweis teaches the concept that the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power based on a time of day (Sweis, [0106], FIG. 11, “For an embodiment, the protocol is a set of instructions to change the optical power of the lenses by a certain amount at certain times throughout the day”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100A” taught by Friedman to change its optical power according to the “protocol” according to the “therapy”, as taught by Sweis, in order to provide that “the eyesight of the user may improve” (Sweis, FIG. 11, [0102]).
As to claim 12, Sweis teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power based on an active viewing time (Sweis, FIG. 2, [0040], “compliance by the user properly wearing the shutter glasses for a prescribed duration of time can be determined by accessed storage of wearing times and patterns by the user of the shutter glasses”; [0058], “For an embodiment, information related to the monitoring/sensing of the glasses is stored, such as in the glasses. For an embodiment, after stored, the monitoring information can be later retrieved, for example, by a doctor or physician to allow the physician to determine or gauge the compliance (e.g. duration of time of wearing the glasses) by the patient with the therapy suggested by the doctor of physician”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1) and Zakharov et al. (US 2021/0345912 A1).
As to claim 11, Friedman in view of Yadin does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power based on pupil size information.
However, Zakharov teaches the concept that the tunable lens is further configured to change optical power based on pupil size information ([0066], “The eye monitoring unit 132 may sense at least one of movements of eyes, size of the pupils, blinking activity, tear film quality or change of the lens shape of the user. When human eyes focus on an object, they perform coordinated adjustments in vergence, shape of the lens to change optical power and, correspondingly, focal length and pupil size…”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100A” taught by Friedman to including the change of optical power based on the pupil size as taught by Zakharov, in order to monitor parameters related to the visual activity and/or health status of one or both eyes and compensating effects to the size of the pupil due to brightness (Zakharov, [0066]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 13, Friedman in view of Starner and Nobori teaches an electronic device (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “near-eye display 500”), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”);
a global positioning system (GPS) sensor coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to determine location information (Starner, FIG. 1B, “the HMD may include a global positioning system (GPS) configured to determine a geographic location associated with the HMD”); and
a tunable lens (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “ocular lens 510”; FIGS. 1A, [0031], “the deformable reflectors 111 and/or 112 may change their radius of curvature”) coupled to the head-mounted support structure (Friedman, see FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”).
However, the closest known prior art, i.e., Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1), Yadin et al. (US 2024/0192525 A1), Ko (US 2018/0136466 A1), Matsuzawa et al. (US 2017/0328726 A1), Sweis et al. (US 2014/0176902 A1), Zakharov et al. (US 2021/0345912 A1), Yadin et al. (US 2017/0160440 A1), Burkert et al. (US 2017/0003519 A1), Lee et al. (US 2021/0389591 A1), Lee et al. (US 2023/0036308 A1), Jones et al. (US 2017/0200296 A1), Moore et al. (US 2020/0082790 A1) and Wexler et al. (US 2014/0267645 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the tunable lens is configured to change, based at least on the location information determined by the GPS sensor, from a first mode in which the tunable lens has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the tunable lens has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power”.
As to claims 14-15, they depend from claim 13, and are allowed at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 16, Friedman in view of Zakharov teaches an electronic device (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “near-eye display 500”), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”);
an ambient light sensor (ambient light sensor 130, FIG. 3, [0064]) coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to detect an ambient light level (Fig.1a-1b, 2 and 3 [0051], the wearable activity parameter collecting device 100 may be is mounted/attached on/to the mounting unit 200. The mounting unit 200 is adapted to be attached to spectacles or other wearable devices; [0057], The wearable activity parameter collecting device 100 may comprise at least one of a reading interface 110, a transmitting unit 120, a sensing unit 130, a processor 140 and a memory device 150; [0064] The sensing unit 130 may include one or more of a distance sensor 131, an eye monitoring unit 132, a movement sensor 133, an ambient light sensor 134); and
a tunable lens (Friedman, FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “ocular lens 510”; FIGS. 1A, [0031], “the deformable reflectors 111 and/or 112 may change their radius of curvature”) coupled to the head-mounted support structure (Friedman, see FIGS. 5-6, [0049], “frame 501”).
However, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitation “wherein the tunable lens is configured to change from a first mode with a first optical power to a second mode with a second optical power in response to the ambient light level detected by the ambient light sensor being below a threshold”.
As to claims 17-20, they depend from claim 16, and are allowed at least for the same reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Yadin et al. (US 2017/0160440 A1) teach the concept of “adaptive spectacles … control circuitry configured to receive input indicative of a distance from an eye of a person … to tune the first and second lenses in response to the input” (Abs.);
Burkert et al. (US 2017/0003519 A1) teaches the concept of “circuit suitable for correcting presbyopia if the user is gazing at a device located at close distance” (Abs.);
Lee et al. (US 2021/0389591 A1) teaches the concept of “determining first refractive power based on vision information of the user” (Abs.);
Lee et al. (US 2023/0036308 A1) teaches the concept of “measuring a visual acuity (VA) by using a focus-tunable lens” (Abs.);
Jones et al. (US 2017/0200296 A1) teaches the concept of “near-to-eye displays supporting a range of application from helping users with low vision through augmenting a real world view to displaying virtual environment” (Abs.); and
Moore et al. (US 2020/0082790 A1) teaches the concept of “detecting ambient light with wearable heads-up displays” (Abs.); and
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Sep. 24, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
