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 § 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, 2, 3, 7, 14-16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux et al. (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713), hereinafter “Guilloux”, in view of Divo et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168), hereinafter “Divo”.
Regarding claim 1, Guilloux discloses a method for determining parameter of a subject for determining a vision correction equipment (Paragraph 53), the method comprising steps of: measuring a total height of the subject (“T”) (Paragraph 63); determining, with a calculator programmed therefor (Paragraph 60), the height (“H”) of one of the eyes of the subject relative to a reference horizontal surface (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 77), the height (“H”) being estimated based on a statistical model linking said height (“H”) to the total height (“T”) of the subject (Paragraph 60); placing a visual target (“target point”) in front of the head of the subject at a predetermined position (“d”) (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81), of the subject relative to the reference horizontal surface (Paragraph 60); while the subject gazes at said visual target placed at said predetermined position (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81). Guilloux discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter, the position being determined taking into account said determined height of one of the eyes of the subject, capturing an image of the head of the subject with an image capture apparatus; and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Divo discloses determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61), the position being determined taking into account said determined height of one of the eyes of the subject (see Figs. 7A-8C, Paragraph 77), capturing an image of the head of the subject with an image capture apparatus (Paragraph 77); and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux with determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter, the position being determined taking into account said determined height of one of the eyes of the subject, capturing an image of the head of the subject with an image capture apparatus; and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter of Divo for the purpose of providing the measurement of frame-fitting parameters and of ocular refraction parameters in order to manufacture spectacles for the visual correction of an individual (Paragraphs 1, 2).
Regarding claim 2, Guilloux further discloses wherein the height of one of the eyes of the subject is determined for a seating or standing subject (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Guilloux and Divo teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Divo further discloses wherein said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter of said subject comprises one of: an interpupillary distance, a half interpupillary distance, and a fitting height (Paragraph 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Guilloux with the teachings of Divo for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Guilloux discloses a system for determining parameter of a subject to determine a vision correction equipment including at least a frame and an ophthalmic lens according to the method of claim 1 (Paragraph 53), the system comprising: a measurement system configured to measure a total height of the subject (“T”) (Paragraph 63); a calculator configured to determine the height (“H”) of one of the eyes of the subject relative to the reference horizontal surface (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 60,77), the height (“H”) being estimated based on a statistical model linking said height (“H”) to the total height (“T”) of the subject (Paragraph 60); the visual target (“target point”) configured to be placed in front of the head of the subject at a predetermined position (“d”) (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81), of the subject relative to the reference horizontal surface, determined by said calculator (Paragraph 60); while the subject gazes at said visual target placed at said predetermined position (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81). In addition, Divo discloses determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61), the position being determined taking into account said height of one of the eyes of the subject (see Figs. 7A-8C, Paragraph 77), the image capture apparatus configured to capture the image of the head of the subject (Paragraph 77), another calculator configured to deduce, from the image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Guilloux with the teachings of Divo for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Guilloux further discloses wherein the reference horizontal surface is one of: the floor, a seat of a chair, and a top surface of a table (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 77).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Guilloux discloses predetermined position (“d”) (see Fig. 1). Guilloux and Divo teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Divo further discloses wherein said position is such that the visual target is positioned approximately at said height of one of the eyes of the subject relative to the reference horizontal surface (see Fig. 8C, Paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Guilloux with the teachings of Divo for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Guilloux discloses a method for determining parameter of a subject for determining a vision correction equipment (Paragraph 53), the method comprising steps of: determining, with a calculator programmed therefor (Paragraph 60), the height (“H”) of one of the eyes of the subject relative to a reference horizontal surface (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 60, 77); placing a visual target (“target point”) in front of the head of the subject at a predetermined position “d” (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81), of the subject relative to the reference horizontal surface (Paragraph 60); while the subject gazes at said visual target placed at said predetermined position (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77, 81). Guilloux discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter, placing a visual target and an image capture apparatus in front of the head of the subject at a position, the position being determined taking into account said height of one of the eyes of the subject, capturing an image of the head of the subject with the image capture apparatus; and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Divo discloses determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61), placing a visual target and an image capture apparatus in front of the head of the subject at a position (see Figs. 7A-8C), the position being determined taking into account said height of one of the eyes of the subject (see Figs. 7A-8C, Paragraph 77), capturing an image of the head of the subject with the image capture apparatus (Paragraph 77); and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux with determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter, placing a visual target and an image capture apparatus in front of the head of the subject at a position, the position being determined taking into account said height of one of the eyes of the subject, capturing an image of the head of the subject with the image capture apparatus; and deducing, from the captured image, the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter of Divo for the purpose of providing the measurement of frame-fitting parameters and of ocular refraction parameters in order to manufacture spectacles for the visual correction of an individual (Paragraphs 1, 2).
Claims 5, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713) in view of Divo (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (USPG Pub No. 2016/0011437), hereinafter “Nishimura”.
Regarding claim 5, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein said statistical model takes into account the gender of the subject. In the same field of endeavor, Nishimura disclose wherein said statistical model takes into account the gender of the subject (Paragraph 118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein said statistical model takes into account the gender of the subject of Nishimura for the purpose of designing and manufacturing customized eyeglasses for a subject (Paragraphs 1, 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein said statistical model takes into account the age of the subject. In the same field of endeavor, Nishimura disclose wherein said statistical model takes into account the age of the subject (Paragraph 118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein said statistical model takes into account the gender of the subject of Nishimura for the purpose of designing and manufacturing customized eyeglasses for a subject (Paragraphs 1, 2).
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713) in view of Divo (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chauveau (USPG Pub No. 2010/0128220).
Regarding claim 8, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein said visual target is the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus. In the same field of endeavor, Chauveau discloses wherein said visual target is the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus (see Fig. 9, Paragraph 162 – entrance pupil: “95”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein said visual target is the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus of Chauveau for the purpose of measuring and calculating the desired parameters in order to personalize the optical design of the corrective ophthalmic lenses that are to be mounted in a frame selected by a wearer (Paragraphs 1, 162-164).
Regarding claim 9, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein said visual target is different from the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus, and a relative position of said visual target and said entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus is determined. In the same field of endeavor, Chauveau discloses wherein said visual target (92) is different from the entrance pupil (95) of the image capture apparatus (90) and a relative position of said visual target and said entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus is determined (see Figs. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein said visual target is different from the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus, and a relative position of said visual target and said entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus is determined of Chauveau for the purpose of measuring and calculating the desired parameters in order to personalize the optical design of the corrective ophthalmic lenses that are to be mounted in a frame selected by a wearer (Paragraphs 1, 162-164).
Regarding claim 11, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein a relative position of a pupil of one of the eyes of the subject and the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus is taken into account to determine said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Chauveau discloses wherein a relative position of a pupil of one of the eyes of the subject and the entrance pupil (51) of the image capture apparatus (50) is taken into account for determining said geometrico-morphological parameter (see Figs. 8-11 – entrance pupil: “95”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein a relative position of a pupil of one of the eyes of the subject and the entrance pupil of the image capture apparatus is taken into account to determine said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter of Chauveau for the purpose of measuring and calculating the desired parameters in order to personalize the optical design of the corrective ophthalmic lenses that are to be mounted in a frame selected by a wearer (Paragraphs 1, 162-164).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713) in view of Divo (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of El-Hajal et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0324290), hereinafter “El-Hajal”.
Regarding claim 10, Guilloux and Divo teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Divo further discloses said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Guilloux with the teachings of Divo for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein a relative position of the visual target and the image capture apparatus is taken into account to determine parameter. In the same field of endeavor, El-Hajal discloses wherein a relative position of the visual target and the image capture apparatus is taken into account to determine parameter (see Figs. 3, 4, Paragraphs 25, 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein a relative position of the visual target and the image capture apparatus is taken into account to determine parameter of El-Hajal for the purpose of providing a measurement system and method to properly design and fit prescription eyewear (Paragraph 2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713) in view of Divo (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haddadi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0049306), hereinafter “Haddadi”.
Regarding claim 12, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein global yaw and pitch angles of the head of the subject while the image is captured are determined and taken into account to determine said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter. In the same field of endeavor, Haddadi discloses wherein global yaw and pitch angles of the head of the subject while the image is captured are determined and taken into account to determine said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter (Paragraphs 91-94). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein global yaw and pitch angles of the head of the subject while the image is captured are determined and taken into account to determine said at least one geometrico-morphological parameter of Haddadi for the purpose of providing accurate measurements (Paragraphs 90-94).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilloux (USPG Pub No. 2012/0268713) in view of Divo (USPG Pub No. 2015/0146168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abovitz et al. (WO 2016/149416 A1), hereinafter “Abovitz”.
Regarding claim 13, Guilloux and Divo disclose the claimed invention except for wherein an additional step is performed to determine whether both eyes of the subject are looking at the visual target simultaneously, and an alert message is emitted when both eyes of the subject are not looking at the visual target simultaneously. In the same field of endeavor, Abovitz discloses wherein an additional step is performed to determine whether both eyes of the subject are looking at the visual target simultaneously, and an alert message is emitted when both eyes of the subject are not looking at the visual target simultaneously (Paragraph 490). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux and Divo with wherein an additional step is performed to determine whether both eyes of the subject are looking at the visual target simultaneously, and an alert message is emitted when both eyes of the subject are not looking at the visual target simultaneously of Abovitz for the purpose of determining convergence (Paragraph 490).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As presented above, Guilloux teaches measuring a total height of a subject relative to a horizontal surface (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph 62), wherein the height of one of the eyes can be determined as a function of the height of the wearer (see Paragraph 60). The function can be either linear or affine, for example, wherein statistical models require such functions for computation. A target is placed in front of the head of the subject at a predetermined position relative to the reference horizontal surface while the subject gazes at said target (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 77 and 81). Even though the claim language as presented reads as manual steps taken, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Guilloux teaches the invention but does not specify determining at least one geometrico-morphological parameter, the position being determined taking into account said determined height of one of the eyes of the subject, capturing an image of the head of the subject with an image capture apparatus, and determining the at least one geometrico-morphological parameter from the image. Divo cures these deficiencies of Guilloux.
Paragraphs 59 and 77 of Divo teach that the a target for stimulating the gaze is disposed at the height of the eyes along with the image capture system, at which point an image of the head of the subject is obtained. With the obtained image, a geometrico-morphological parameter is determined (see Paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Guilloux with the teachings of Divo for the purpose of providing the measurement of frame-fitting parameters and of ocular refraction parameters in order to manufacture custom spectacles for visual correction (see Paragraphs 1, 2 of Divo). The claims as presented are absent of new and unexpected results. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights