CTNF 19/310,763 CTNF 90501 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “The electronic device defined in claim 17, wherein wherein ” . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 17-18 of Patent No. 12,422,682 B2 in view of Lee (US 2015/0234206 A1) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Patent claims 1 and 6 teaches all the limitation recited in application claim 1, but the limitation “chang ing optical power” while patent claims 1 and 6 recite “changing … spherical power”. However, Lee teaches the concept of changing optical power (Lee, FIG. 5, [0058], “all or only a portion of the actuators 580 may be activated to change the optical property of the adaptive optics 110”, e.g., “10 Diopters ↔ 5 Diopters”) as well as spherical power (Lee, FIG. 12, [0095], “one or more adaptive optical materials 1000 may be adjusted by display system 1250, including … adjusting a spherical power”). At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “tunable lens” taught by the patent claim 1 to change optical power as well as the spherical power, as taught by Lee, in order to address the problem that “aberrations of an eye may change over time, or the eyewear may be shared amongst several users who have different aberrations” (Lee, [0005]). Application 12,422,682 1. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; a tunable lens coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to change optical power; and an output device coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to provide output indicating that the tunable lens is changing optical power . 1. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure; and a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module comprises a tunable lens that is configured to : in response to a determination, based on data from the one or more sensors, that a nearby object is being viewed through the lens module , change from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is greater than the first spherical power , wherein the tunable lens is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode during a transition period and wherein the transition period has a duration that is greater than 0.1 seconds . 6. The electronic device defined in claim 1, further comprising: an output device that is configured to provide output indicating that the tunable lens is changing from the first mode to the second mode . 2. The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a display . 7. The electronic device defined in claim 6, wherein the output device comprises a display . 5. The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a speaker . 8. The electronic device defined in claim 6, wherein the output device comprises a speaker . 8. The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the output device comprises a haptic output device. 9. The electronic device defined in claim 6, wherein the output device comprises a haptic output device. 10 . The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power based on a time of day . 11. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure; and a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module comprises a tunable lens that is configured to: based on data from the one or more sensors and based on a time of day , change from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power . 13. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; and a tunable lens coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change, based at least on location information , 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. 18. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure; and a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module comprises a tunable lens that is configured to: based on data from the one or more sensors and based on location information , change from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power. 15. The electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode based at least on the location information and a time of day . 11. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure; and a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module comprises a tunable lens that is configured to: based on data from the one or more sensors and based on a time of day , change from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power. 16 . An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; an ambient light sensor coupled to the head-mounted support structure; and a tunable lens coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to change optical power based on data from the ambient light sensor . 17. An electronic device, comprising: a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the one or more sensors comprises an ambient light sensor ; and a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module comprises a tunable lens that is configured to: based on data from the ambient light sensor , change from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode in response to an ambient level detected by the ambient light sensor being below a threshold . 17 . The electronic device defined in claim 16, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change, based on the data from the ambient light sensor , from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power. 18. The electronic device defined in claim 17, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode in response to an ambient level detected by the ambient light sensor being below a threshold . Claims 11 and 19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of Patent No. 12,422,682 B2 in view of Lee (US 2015/0234206 A1) and Zakharov et al. (US 2021/0345912 A1).) . As to claim 11 , Patent claims in view of Lee does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power based on pupil size information. However, Zakharov teaches the concept of chang ing 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 device of Lee 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]). As to claim 19 , it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 11, and is not allowable for the same reason above. Please see claim 11 for detailed analysis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Ko (US 2018/0136466 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 100 A”). Friedman does not explicitly teach “an output device coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to provide output indicating that the tunable lens is changing optical power”. However, Ko teaches the concept of an output device (Ko, FIG. 2A, [0046], “display unit 151 ”) coupled to the head-mounted support structure (Ko, see FIG. 2A, [0046], “frame (or a frame part) 101 and 102 ”) and configured to provide output indicating that the tunable lens is changing focal length (Ko, FIG. 5D, [0117], “output an indicator indicating a change of a focal length on the display unit 151 for a preset time (S 1610 )”). 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 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 3 , 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 (S 1620 )”). 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 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 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Ko (US 2018/0136466 A1) and Matsuzawa et al. (US 2017/0328726 A1) . As to claim 4 , Friedman in view of Ko does not explicitly teach the electronic device defined in claim 2, wherein the output comprises a text notification. However, Matsuzawa teaches the concept that the output comprises a text 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 ” taught by Friedman to further display the “indicator at step S 1610 ” taught by Ko “in the form of video such as text”, as taught by Matsuzawa, in order to intuitively notify the changing states to the user. As to claim 6 , Matsuzawa teaches the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the output comprises a chime (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”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 4. As to claim 7 , Matsuzawa teaches the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the output comprises 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”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Ko (US 2018/0136466 A1) and Sweis et al. (US 2014/0176902 A1) . As to claim 9 , Friedman in view of Ko does not teach wherein the output device is further configured to suggest a change in optical power and wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power in response to the suggested change in optical power being approved by a user. However, Sweis teaches the concept that the output device is further configured to suggest a change in optical power and wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power in response to the suggested change in optical power being approved by a user (Sweis, FIG. 11, [0103], “the therapy can cause the user's eyesight to improve, and the adjustable prescription lenses can account for these changes (improvement)”; it is reasonably inferred that the “therapy” must have suggested a change in optical power according to circumstances, and such change must be approved by the user for the “improvement”). At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100 A” taught by Friedman to change its optical power according to the “therapy” in association with the suggestion and approval, as taught by Sweis, in order to provide that “the eyesight of the user may improve” (Sweis, FIG. 11, [0102]). As to claim 10 , Sweis teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is 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”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 9. As to claim 12 , Sweis teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is 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 9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Ko (US 2018/0136466 A1) and Zakharov et al. (US 2021/0345912 A1) . As to claim 11 , Friedman in view of Ko does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power based on pupil size information. However, Zakharov teaches the concept that the tunable lens is 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]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Nobori et al. (US 2015/0235427 A1) . As to claim 13 , 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 ”); 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 ”), wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power (FIGS. 1A, [0031], “thereby changing their optical power and tuning the overall optical power of the lens 100 A”). Friedman does not teach changing “spherical power” rather than “optical power”; and changing “based on location information, 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”. However, Nobori teaches the concept of changing spherical power (Nobori, FIGS. 1 and 8, [0140], e.g., “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of eyesight information in a case where the user is presbyopic … an SPH indicates a diopter of a spherical lens”); and changing based on location information (Nobori, e.g., FIG. 4, [0175], “distance calculation step S401”; FIG. 6, [0127], “as the distances from the visual field imaging units 111 to the subjects, a distance to the book is 0.5 [m], and a distance to the table is 0.8 [m]”), 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 (Nobori, FIG. 8, [0200-0201], “Embodiment 4: as illustrated in FIG. 8, the eyesight information of the user is expressed by a set of a parameter δ of a point spread function indicating blurring, corresponding to a distance d to a subject, and a diopter s of a lens for clearly seeing the subject at the distance d”; “For example, there is a case where, even if letters are seen to be blurred immediately after starting to read a book, the letters becomes clearly seen when some time passes. In order to handle the change in the eyesight of the user over time, instead of the eyesight information of the user, used in Embodiments 1 to 3, which is constant regardless of the passage of time, eyesight information which changes over time may be used”; the Diopter s may change any direction between 0.0 to 4.0 in this example). At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100 A” taught by Friedman to further perform the “distance calculation step S401” and “eyesight information acquisition step S403”, and based on the obtained location information and the “eyesight information”, change the “lens 100 A” among a plurality of modes with corresponding spherical powers, so as to provide eyesight correction to the user, as taught by Nobori, in order to provide “an image display device which enables a person who has ametropia of the eye such as presbyopia to see both a near object and a far object clearly and to see an object without distortion when the person uses the image display device” (Nobori, [0011]) . - 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Nobori et al. (US 2015/0235427 A1) and Starner et al. (US 9,197,864 B1) . As to claim 14 , Friedman in view of Nobori does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the location information indicates a user is at a workplace. However, Starner teaches the concept that the location information indicates a user is at a workplace (Starner, FIG. 1B, “the HMD may include a global positioning system (GPS) configured to determine a geographic location associated with the HMD”; “For instance, if the location, date, and time associated with the first image indicates the user may be on the way home from work when the first image is captured, context indicating that the user is “commuting” may be determined and associated with the first image as an attribute”; it is reasonably inferred that the “geographic location associated with the HMD” may include the location of user’s workplace and home; see column 8, lines ). At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “near-eye display 500 ” taught by Friedman to further comprise the “global positioning system (GPS)”, as taught by Starner, in order to provide “an efficient and intuitive search for, and navigation of, stored information associated with a user's real-world experience” (Starner, Summary) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Nobori et al. (US 2015/0235427 A1) and Sweis et al. (US 2014/0176902 A1) . As to claim 15 , Friedman in view of Nobori teaches the electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the 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”) is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode based at least on the location information (Nobori, e.g., FIG. 4, [0175], “distance calculation step S401”; FIG. 6, [0127], “as the distances from the visual field imaging units 111 to the subjects, a distance to the book is 0.5 [m], and a distance to the table is 0.8 [m]”) as discussed in claim 13. Friedman in view of Nobori does not teach change … based on a time of day”. However, Sweis teaches the concept of changing … 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 100 A” taught by Friedman to change its spherical power according to the “protocol”, as taught by Sweis, in order to provide that “the eyesight of the user may improve” (Sweis, FIG. 11, [0102]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Zakharov et al. (US 2021/0345912 A1) . As to claim 16 , 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 ”); 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 ”) and configured to change optical power (FIGS. 1A, [0031], “thereby changing their optical power and tuning the overall optical power of the lens 100 A”). Friedman does not teach “an ambient light sensor coupled to the head-mounted support structure”; and chang ing optical power “based on data from the ambient light sensor”. However, Zakharov teaches the concepts of an ambient light sensor (ambient light sensor 130, Fig.3, [0064]) coupled to the head-mounted support structure (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 chang ing optical power based on data from the ambient light sensor ([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… During the detection of the accommodation from pupil size, the system may compensate effects to the size of the pupil due to brightness which may be measured with the context sensors, such as ambient light sensor”, At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100 A” taught by Friedman to change optical power based on the “sensors including an ambient light sensor”, 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]). As to claim 19 , Friedman in view of Zakharov teaches the electronic device defined in claim 16, wherein the 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”) is configured to change optical power (FIGS. 1A, [0031], “thereby changing their optical power and tuning the overall optical power of the lens 100 A”) based on the data from the ambient light sensor and based on pupil size data (Zakharov, [0066]”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 16 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Zakharov and Lee et al. (US 2015/0234206 A1) . As to claim 17 , Friedman does not explicitly teach the electronic device defined in claim 16, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change, based on the data from the ambient light sensor, from a first mode in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power. However, Lee teaches the concept that the tunable lens (Lee, FIG. 5, [0057], “adaptive optics 110”) is configured to change (Lee, FIG. 5, [0057], “coupled with a control system 150 operative to modify an index of refraction of the adaptive optics 110”), based on the data from the ambient light sensor, from a first mode (Lee, FIG. 7, [0067], e.g., “ambient light sensor 790 may be used to determine if ambient light conditions are too bright to accurately image retina 410”) in which the lens module has a first spherical power to a second mode in which the lens module has a second spherical power that is less than the first spherical power (Lee, [0095], “one or more adaptive optical materials 1000 may be adjusted by display system 1250, including … adjusting a spherical power”). At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “lens 100 A” taught by Friedman to “adjust spherical power” based on the determination by the “ambient light sensor 790”, as taught by Lee, in order to address the problem that “aberrations of an eye may change over time, or the eyewear may be shared amongst several users who have different aberrations” (Lee, [0005]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Zakharov and Lee et al. (US 2015/0234206 A1) and further in view of Oliver (US 2019/0384063) . As to claim 18 , Friedman, Zakharov in view of Lee teaches the electronic device defined in claim 17, wherein wherein the tunable lens (Lee, FIG. 5, [0057], “adaptive optics 110”) is configured to change from the first mode to the second mode (Lee, FIG. 5, [0057], “coupled with a control system 150 operative to modify an index of refraction of the adaptive optics 110”) in response to an ambient level detected by the ambient light sensor (Lee, FIG. 7, [0067], e.g., “ambient light sensor 790 may be used to determine if ambient light conditions are too bright to accurately image retina 410”) as addressed in claim 17, but does not teach the limitation being below a threshold . Oliver teaches an ambient level detected by the ambient light sensor being below a threshold. (Oliver, e.g., FIG. 7, [0063], “At 327 , the processor determines if an absolute value of the ambient light sensor output value difference exceeds an ambient light sensor output difference threshold”). 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 “adjust spherical power” based on the determination by the “ambient light sensor 790”, as taught by Zakharov and Lee and output ambient light sensor below threshold of Oliver , in order to accurate compensating pupil size in response to a light sensor output . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman et al. (US 2024/0118535 A1) in view of Zakharov and Sweis et al. (US 2014/0176902 A1) . As to claim 20 , Friedman in view of Zakharov teaches the electronic device defined in claim 16, wherein the tunable lens is configured to change optical power based on the data from the ambient light sensor as addressed in claim 16 (Zakharov,[0066]). Sweis further 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 9. Conclusion The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Kangas et al. (US 11,221,488 B1), Thrun et al. (US 12,271,062) and Gill et al. (US 2022/0026742 A1) teach the concept of a “adjustable lenses” (Abs.); Miller et al. (US 2017/0293145 A1) teaches the concept of “variable focus lens” with “ambient light sensor” (FIG. 10B); Zannoli et al. (US 2021/0223551 A1) teaches the concept of “tunable lenses” (Abs.); and Van Heugten (US 2017/0336637 A1) teaches the concept of “changing the refractive index of the electro-active focusing element” (Abs.). 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. /RICHARD J HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 2 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 3 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 4 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 5 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 6 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 7 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 8 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 9 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 10 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 11 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 12 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 13 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 14 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 15 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 16 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 17 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 18 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 19 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 20 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 21 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 22 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 19/310,763 Page 23 Art Unit: 2623
Prosecution Insights