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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamaguchi Koji et al. (JP 2022012038 A) (hereinafter – Hamaguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Hamaguchi discloses An ophthalmologic apparatus for measuring a value of intraocular pressure of an eye, based on a state of deformation of a cornea of the eye in applanation due to air blowing, the ophthalmologic apparatus comprising (Abstract and entire document):
an air blower configured to puff air to the cornea (Para. [0018], “fluid discharge unit 200”); and
a controller configured to control an operation of the air blower (Para. [0018], “control unit 80”),
wherein the controller is configured to have a preliminary puffing mode in which preliminary puffing is executed such that the air blower puffs the air in non-measurement of the value of intraocular pressure (Para. [0018], “The control unit controls the drive unit. For example, the control unit performs a first discharge (first discharge control) for deforming the cornea in the intraocular pressure measurement, and between the first discharge and the next measurement, a foreign substance near the discharge port of the fluid discharge unit. A second discharge (second discharge control) is performed to remove the water. As described above, in the non-contact tonometer of the second embodiment, by performing the second discharge after the first discharge, foreign matter such as aerosol scattered by the first discharge is sucked into the inside of the fluid discharge portion. Can be suppressed.” A second discharge, interpreted as the preliminary puffing occurring during a preliminary puffing mode, which is a period of non-measurement of intraocular pressure, see further claim 1 reciting, “after the first discharge, between the first discharge and the next measurement, the fluid discharge means of the fluid discharge means. A non-contact tonometer characterized by performing a second discharge for removing foreign matter in the vicinity of the discharge port.” See also [0073] – [0091] a first discharge occurs during a period of measurement, and after the second discharge or preliminary puff.); and
the display is configured to, in response to satisfaction of a preliminary puffing condition, display a content to issue a notification that prompts the preliminary puffing to be executed in non-measurement of the value of intraocular pressure (The second discharge, the cleaning discharge, is performed automatically after a first discharge, the measurement discharge. It is interpreted that the controller receives a notification to prompt the puffing, automatically. There is a preliminary puffing mode (the second discharge) that occurs in a non-measurement state, after a measurement and before the next measurement. See also FIG. 9-10 showing a display and a notification showing “second discharge mark 503”, interpreted as a content notification prompting the second air puff discharge to occur, see [0090 – 0091]. This all occurs during a non-measurement period. The measurement period occurs during the first discharge. Then, the preliminary puffing mode in the non-measurement period occurs. This is occurring to remove foreign substances from the nozzle. Now, this puffing acts a preliminary puffing because the device is clear for further measurements.).
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary puffing condition is a first preliminary puffing condition; and the controller is further configured to, in response to satisfaction of a second preliminary puffing condition, control the air blower such that the preliminary puffing is automatically executed (the second discharge is occurring automatically after a first measurement discharge).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to set the second preliminary puffing condition as either determination of a measurement start of the value of intraocular pressure or determination of a measurement termination of the value of intraocular pressure (the second discharge is occurring automatically after a first measurement discharge, or the determination that the measurement occurred).
Regarding claim 5, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to arbitrarily set a number of puffs of the air in execution of the preliminary puffing (Para. [0091], “The control unit 80 may change the discharge amount, the discharge pressure, the discharge timing, and the like in the second discharge. For example, as shown in FIG. 10, the discharge amount, the discharge pressure, and the discharge timing may be arbitrarily set by the examiner by the setting screen 600 displayed on the display unit 85. The control unit 80 may change, for example, the magnitude or supply time of the current supplied to the solenoid based on the set discharge amount, discharge pressure, or discharge timing.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to set a first pressure of a first puff of the air in execution of the preliminary puffing so as to be larger than a second pressure of a second puff of the air in measurement of the value of intraocular pressure. (Para. [0091] discussing changing the pressure).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, during execution of the preliminary puffing, perform noise inhibitory control of inhibiting noise due to the execution of the preliminary puffing. (Para. [0077], describing performing puffing at timing when the subject is switched and thus the second puff for cleaning is restricted when the eye is not there.).
Regarding claim 8, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, when the eye is present in a predetermined range from a nozzle configured to puff the air, restrict execution of the preliminary puffing (Para. [0077], describing performing puffing at timing when the subject is switched and thus the second puff for cleaning is restricted when the eye is not there.).
Regarding claim 9, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, when the preliminary puffing is executed, displace a nozzle to a predetermined position; and the nozzle is configured to puff the air (Para. [0076], the nozzle is retracted.).
Regarding claim 11, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, after the preliminary puffing is executed, switch from the preliminary puffing mode to a measurement mode in which another puffing is executed such that the air blower puffs the air in measurement of the value of intraocular pressure (See claim 1 “…a control means for controlling is provided, and the control means performs a first discharge for deforming the cornea in an intraocular pressure measurement, and after the first discharge, between the first discharge and the next measurement, the fluid discharge means of the fluid discharge means. A non-contact tonometer characterized by performing a second discharge for removing foreign matter in the vicinity of the discharge port.” A second discharge is the preliminary puffing, after which a new measurement including a first discharge for measurement of intraocular pressure occurs.).
Regarding claim 12, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the content is a notice window (FIG. 9-10 and associated paragraphs, see [0091] discussing the notification showing “second discharge mark 503”, interpreted as a content notification prompting the second air puff discharge to occur and is interpreted as a notice window).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi Koji et al. (JP 2022012038 A) (“Hamaguchi").
Regarding claim 13, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 12, Hamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the notice window displays "PLEASE EXECUTE PRELIMINARY PUFFING".
However, Hamaguchi teaches a notice window displaying similar output with the same goal, see FIG. 9-10 and associated paragraphs, see [0091] discussing the notification showing “second discharge mark 503”, interpreted as a notice window instructing execution of preliminary puffing to occur, see MPEP 2183, “(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).”. There is not a substantial difference between notice windows having specific wording of the notice. They are determined to be equivalent notices.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi Koji et al. (JP 2022012038 A) (“Hamaguchi”) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2017/0065174 A1) (“Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 10, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi further discloses wherein the ophthalmologic apparatus is configured to measure: (i) the value of intraocular pressure of the eye, based on the state of deformation of the cornea in applanation due to air blowing (Para. [0018], “The control unit controls the drive unit. For example, the control unit performs a first discharge (first discharge control) for deforming the cornea in the intraocular pressure measurement,”);
Hamaguchi fails to disclose (ii) a refractive power of the eye; and (iii) a kerato of the eye.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches (ii) a refractive power of the eye; and (iii) a kerato of the eye ([0060], “Although in the embodiment, the refractive power test is conducted as the first examination, the first examination is not limited to this. For example, a kerato optic system may be disposed, the kerato optic system being configured by arranging a plurality of light sources along a circumference with a predetermined radius in the examination window 30 on a subject's eye E side, to irradiate a plurality of light beams circumferentially onto the cornea of the subject's eye E and measure a curvature radius of the cornea based on a plurality of bright spots that are irradiated on the cornea by using the two-dimensioned imaging element (CCD) 306 in the observation optical system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus as taught by Hamaguchi to include (ii) a refractive power of the eye; and (iii) a kerato of the eye as taught by Yamamoto to improve accuracy ([0010], “By rotating the examination window around the air passage for the intraocular pressure as the rotation axis, the rotation of the examination window does not cause the air passage for the intraocular pressure to move, thereby enabling a stable amount of air to be puffed toward the subject's eye in the tonometry, and deterioration of examination accuracy can be prevented.”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi Koji et al. (JP 2022012038 A) (“Hamaguchi”) in view of Von Bünau et al. (US 20210145278 A1) (“Von Bünau”).
Regarding claim 14, Hamaguchi discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi wherein the content includes a notice window (FIG. 9-10 and associated paragraphs, see [0091] discussing the notification showing “second discharge mark 503”, interpreted as a content notification prompting the second air puff discharge to occur and is interpreted as a notice window) Hamaguchi fails to disclose wherein the content includes occurrence of a voice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Von Bünau teaches wherein the content includes occurrence of a voice ([0006], “The control unit of the tonometer includes a display and optionally a buzzer, such as to audibly alert the user to a measurement failure or if a battery is low. The electro-optical unit employs a tubular wave guide, a light detector, and a reflector for deflecting a light beam to the eye and for eliminating a part of the reflected light reaching the detector. The aligning of the tonometer with the head of the user is optionally assisted by an observed reticle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus as taught by Hamaguchi to include wherein the content includes occurrence of a voice as taught by Von Bünau to have visual and audible alert ([0006], “The control unit of the tonometer includes a display and optionally a buzzer, such as to audibly alert the user to a measurement failure or if a battery is low.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendments have required a new rejection, in light of the timing requirements of the notification. It has been determined after further analysis that the primary reference Hamaguchi does indeed disclose “the display is configured to, in response to a satisfaction of a preliminary puffing condition, display a content to issue a notification that prompts the preliminary puffing to be executed in non-measurement of the value of intraocular pressure.” As discussed in the newly mapped rejection, the second air puff is a cleaning air puff, which is interpreted as the preliminary puffing occurring during non-measurement. The display, see FIG. 9-10, showing “second discharge mark 503”, interpreted as a content notification prompting the second air puff discharge to occur, see [0090 – 0091]. This all occurs during a non-measurement period. The measurement period occurs during the first discharge. Then, the preliminary puffing mode in the non-measurement period occurs. This is occurring to remove foreign substances from the nozzle. Now, this puffing acts a preliminary puffing because the device is clear for further measurements. See claim 1 “…a control means for controlling is provided, and the control means performs a first discharge for deforming the cornea in an intraocular pressure measurement, and after the first discharge, between the first discharge and the next measurement, the fluid discharge means of the fluid discharge means. A non-contact tonometer characterized by performing a second discharge for removing foreign matter in the vicinity of the discharge port.” There is a preliminary puffing mode (the second discharge) that occurs in a non-measurement state, after a measurement and before the next measurement. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive and have required new mappings.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791