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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14 are 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 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.).
Hamaguchi fails to disclose the display to display preliminary puffing to be executed when a manual puffing mode based on an operation by the examiner is set.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Von Bünau teaches the display to display preliminary puffing to be executed when a manual puffing mode based on an operation by the examiner is set ([0040], “The combination device 200 may additionally have a visual unit 225 (e.g., LED or electronic display) and/or an audio unit 227 (e.g., speaker) for respective visual and/or audible prompting of the patient to carry out a planned measurement and/or drug administration.” Display during non-measurement ).
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 the display to display preliminary puffing to be executed when a manual puffing mode based on an operation by the examiner is set as taught by Von Bünau to prompt the user to carry out action ([0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: the second discharge is occurring automatically after a first measurement discharge).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 2, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: the second discharge is occurring automatically after a first measurement discharge, or the determination that the measurement occurred).
Regarding claim 5, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: Para. [0091] discussing changing the pressure and arbitrarily set).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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. (Hamaguchi: 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 as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: 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 as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: Para. [0076], the nozzle is retracted.).
Regarding claim 11, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses 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 (Hamaguchi: 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 as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses wherein the content is a notice window (Hamaguchi: 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).
Regarding claim 13, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 12, Hamaguchi as modified 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.
Regarding claim 14, Hamaguchi as modified discloses The ophthalmologic apparatus according to claim 1, Hamaguchi as modified further discloses wherein the content includes a notice window and occurrence of a voice (Hamaguchi, 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. See further claim 1, Von Bünau teaches in [0040] both notice window and voice).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi in view of Von Bünau in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2017/0065174 A1) (“Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 10, Hamaguchi as modified 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 as modified 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 as modified 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.”).
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. With respect to the arguments regarding claim 6, the arguments are not persuasive. As shown in the rejection, [0091] discusses the arbitrary control of the pressure of the first and second discharges. The pressure can be switched and the second discharge thus more pressure. The system is also performing both discharges and configured for both pressures, and more. The “first” and “second” discharges can also both be performed without an eye present and thus non-measurement. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights